RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS TO FACILITATE ADOPTION

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON :

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeInternet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–001PS 2007

RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND TRAININGPROGRAMS TO FACILITATE ADOPTION

OF SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

HEARINGBEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 19, 2007

Serial No. 110–41

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:06 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 036001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\WORKD\E&E07\061907\36001 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, ChairmanJERRY F. COSTELLO, IllinoisEDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, TexasLYNN C. WOOLSEY, CaliforniaMARK UDALL, ColoradoDAVID WU, OregonBRIAN BAIRD, WashingtonBRAD MILLER, North CarolinaDANIEL LIPINSKI, IllinoisNICK LAMPSON, TexasGABRIELLE GIFFORDS, ArizonaJERRY MCNERNEY, CaliforniaPAUL KANJORSKI, PennsylvaniaDARLENE HOOLEY, OregonSTEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New JerseyMICHAEL M. HONDA, CaliforniaJIM MATHESON, UtahMIKE ROSS, ArkansasBEN CHANDLER, KentuckyRUSS CARNAHAN, MissouriCHARLIE MELANCON, LouisianaBARON P. HILL, IndianaHARRY E. MITCHELL, ArizonaCHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, TexasF. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

WisconsinLAMAR S. SMITH, TexasDANA ROHRABACHER, CaliforniaKEN CALVERT, CaliforniaROSCOE G. BARTLETT, MarylandVERNON J. EHLERS, MichiganFRANK D. LUCAS, OklahomaJUDY BIGGERT, IllinoisW. TODD AKIN, MissouriJO BONNER, AlabamaTOM FEENEY, FloridaRANDY NEUGEBAUER, TexasBOB INGLIS, South CarolinaDAVID G. REICHERT, WashingtonMICHAEL T. MCCAUL, TexasMARIO DIAZ-BALART, FloridaPHIL GINGREY, GeorgiaBRIAN P. BILBRAY, CaliforniaADRIAN SMITH, NebraskaVACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, ChairmanJERRY F. COSTELLO, IllinoisLYNN C. WOOLSEY, CaliforniaDANIEL LIPINSKI, IllinoisGABRIELLE GIFFORDS, ArizonaJERRY MCNERNEY, CaliforniaMARK UDALL, ColoradoBRIAN BAIRD, WashingtonPAUL KANJORSKI, PennsylvaniaBART GORDON, Tennessee

BOB INGLIS, South CarolinaROSCOE G. BARTLETT, MarylandJUDY BIGGERT, IllinoisW. TODD AKIN, MissouriRANDY NEUGEBAUER, TexasMICHAEL T. MCCAUL, TexasMARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RALPH M. HALL, TexasJEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director

CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff MemberSHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff MemberELAINE PAULIONIS Democratic Professional Staff MemberADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff MemberELIZABETH STACK Republican Professional Staff Member

STACEY STEEP Research Assistant


(III)

C O N T E N T SJune 19, 2007

PageWitness List ............................................................................................................. 2Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Prepared Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Sub-committee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Tech-nology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 8

Statement by Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Vice Chair, Subcommitteeon Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.House of Representatives .................................................................................... 5

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member, Sub-

committee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Tech-nology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 7

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Sub-

committee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Tech-nology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 8

Witnesses:

Mr. Herbert T. Hayden, Solar Technology Coordinator, Arizona Public ServiceCompany, Phoenix, Arizona

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11Biography .......................................................................................................... 14

Mr. Rhone Resch, President, Solar Energy Industries AssociationOral Statement ................................................................................................. 15Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17Biography .......................................................................................................... 23

Ms. Jane M. Weissman, Executive Director, Interstate Renewable EnergyCouncil; Vice Chair, North American Board of Certified Energy Practi-tioners


Mr. Joseph T. Sarubbi, Professor/Department Chair, Building Systems Tech-nology Department, Hudson Valley Community College


Dr. Daniel E. Arvizu, Director, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S.Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 41Written Statement ............................................................................................ 43

DiscussionSolar Energy in Germany .................................................................................... 49Solar Check-off Program ...................................................................................... 50Comparison of Solar Energy to ANWR .............................................................. 51


PageIV

More on Solar Check-off Program ....................................................................... 52Manufacturing Cost for Solar Energy ................................................................ 53Tax Incentives for Solar Energy ......................................................................... 54Tax Incentives and Net Metering of Solar Energy ............................................ 55More on Solar Check-off Program ....................................................................... 55Storage and Efficiency of Solar Energy .............................................................. 56Characterization of Support for Solar Energy ................................................... 57Comparison of Centralized to Distributed Solar Energy .................................. 58Net Metering ........................................................................................................ 58Reliability of Solar Energy .................................................................................. 59Solar Workforce Training Program .................................................................... 59More on Solar Workforce Training ..................................................................... 61Efficiency of Solar Energy ................................................................................... 63Storage for Solar Energy ..................................................................................... 64Conversion to Hydrogen ...................................................................................... 65More on Solar Check-off Program ....................................................................... 65More on Solar Check-off Program ....................................................................... 67More on Storage for Solar ................................................................................... 68Water Use for Concentrating Solar Power ......................................................... 69Concentrating Solar Power .................................................................................. 70More on Solar Workforce Training ..................................................................... 71More on Solar Check-off Program ....................................................................... 72

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Herbert T. Hayden, Solar Technology Coordinator, Arizona Public ServiceCompany, Phoenix, Arizona ................................................................................ 76

Mr. Rhone Resch, President, Solar Energy Industries Association ..................... 80Ms. Jane M. Weissman, Executive Director, Interstate Renewable Energy

Council; Vice Chair, North American Board of Certified Energy Practi-tioners ................................................................................................................... 83

Mr. Joseph T. Sarubbi, Professor/Department Chair, Building Systems Tech-nology Department, Hudson Valley Community College .................................. 85

Dr. Daniel E. Arvizu, Director, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S.Department of Energy ......................................................................................... 88

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Discussion Draft, June 14, 2007 ............................................................................. 92


(1)

RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND TRAINING PRO-GRAMS TO FACILITATE ADOPTION OFSOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gabrielle Giffords[Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.


2


3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Research, Education and TrainingPrograms to Facilitate Adoption

of Solar Energy Technologies

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 200710:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

PurposeOn Tuesday, June 19, 2007 the House Committee on Science & Technology, Sub-

committee on Energy and Environment will hold a hearing to receive testimony onthe Discussion Draft sponsored by Rep. Giffords which establishes several importantresearch, education, and training programs to facilitate the adoption of solar energytechnologies.

This bill addresses issues in solar research, education, and training not coveredby the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These include a research and development pro-gram on thermal energy storage technologies for concentrating solar power, a studyto determine the necessary steps to integrate concentrating solar power plants withthe regional and national electric grid, a program to ensure that a sufficient numberof people are properly trained to install and maintain solar energy equipment, andthe establishment of a solar energy research and information program, modeled onsimilar such programs for the beef and dairy industries. The program is supportedby pooling funds from the private sector for the research and promotion of the solarpower industry as a whole.

This hearing will seek to address the following issues relating to the discussionDraft:

• Is thermal energy storage technology important to the viability of concen-trating solar power? Would the increased research and development on ther-mal storage proposed significantly accelerate the advancement of this tech-nology?

• Would a study on how to integrate concentrating solar power plants with theregional and national electric grid be useful?

• Is there a sufficient number of people trained to install and maintain solarenergy equipment to meet the current and future needs of the solar industry?Are such programs necessary or useful for prospective solar panel installersand potential consumers?

• How would the solar research and information program for the solar industryauthorized in the bill help to support research and promote the adoption ofsolar power across the Nation?

BackgroundThe Discussion Draft contains 4 basic components, as described above. The first

two are specifically related to concentrating solar power (CSP). A 2006 report by theWestern Governors’ Association assessed the overall near-term potential for CSP ca-pacity in the American Southwest, taking into account areas of high solar ray inten-sity, near-level land, non-sensitivity to CSP use, and proximity to transmission. Theresulting set of potential plant sites totaled 200 GW of potential power production.To put this in perspective, the electric generating capacity of the entire UnitedStates is currently about 1,000 GW. Some significant challenges remain to wide-spread implementation of CSP, however.

CSP plants produce electric power by converting the sun’s energy into high-tem-perature heat using various mirror configurations. The heat is then channeledthrough a conventional generator. These plants consist of two parts: one that col-lects solar energy and converts it to heat, and another that converts heat energy


4

to electricity. Thermal energy storage technology allows this heat to be retained forlater use in generating electricity, such as during periods of passing clouds or intothe evening. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 establishes a CSP research and develop-ment program, but storage is not included in the language. Section 3 of the Discus-sion Draft authorizes a program dedicated to advancing research and developmentin thermal energy storage for CSP. Section 4 of the Discussion Draft tasks the De-partment of Energy (DOE) with conducting a study on methods to integrate concen-trating solar power with regional electricity transmission systems, and to identifynew transmission or transmission upgrades needed to bring electricity from highconcentrating solar power resource areas to growing electric power load centersthroughout the United States. The results of this study will help define a roadmapfor large-scale implementation of CSP to meet the Nation’s growing energy needs.

The other two components of Discussion Draft address the solar industry in gen-eral. Having a certified, well-trained workforce to install and maintain solar energyproducts is critical to the success of the industry. Some states, such as New Yorkand Florida, working with local community colleges, businesses, the Interstate Re-newable Energy Council (IREC), and the North American Board of Certified EnergyPractitioners (NABCEP) have recently established successful programs to create aworkforce to meet local demand, however there is currently no federal program tohelp establish or improve these training programs across the Nation. Section 5 cre-ates such a program, authorizing $10 million in each year from FY08 through FY12.This section instructs DOE to ensure sufficient geographic distribution of trainingprograms nationally, and to only award grants for programs certified by the Insti-tute of Sustainable Power or equivalent industry-accepted quality-control certifi-cation institution, or for new and growing programs with a credible path to certifi-cation.

A successful model for promoting a particular U.S. commodity, rather than an in-dividual brand, has been demonstrated by the agriculture industry. Funded entirelyby a small portion of industry revenues and overseen by the USDA, organizationssuch as the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board and the National DairyBoard were created to coordinate mutually beneficial research efforts and increaseawareness of their industry as a whole, as well as ensure that consumers knew theproper certification standards to seek out before making a purchase. Modeled afterthese examples, Sections 6–13 create the Solar Industries Research and PromotionBoard, overseen by DOE, which would similarly plan and conduct mutually bene-ficial solar industry research efforts, increase awareness of solar as an energy optionacross the Nation, and ensure that consumers know what certifications a technicianshould have for installation or maintenance of solar energy equipment. The SolarEnergy Industries Association (SEIA) has expressed a strong interest in creatingsuch a program.Witnesses

• Mr. Herbert Hayden is the Arizona Public Service (APS) Solar TechnologyCoordinator. Mr. Hayden will testify on how thermal storage research and de-velopment and the bill’s proposed studies on grid integration and water usagewill help advance the implementation of concentrating solar power.

• Mr. Rhone Resch is the President of the Solar Energy Industries Associa-tion (SEIA). Mr. Resch will testify on how the proposed research and informa-tion for the solar industry would help to support research and promote theadoption of solar power across the Nation.

• Ms. Jane Weissman is the Executive Director of the Interstate RenewableEnergy Council (IREC), and the Vice-Chair of the North American Board ofCertified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP). Ms. Weissman will testify on thecurrent status of workforce training in solar installation and maintenanceacross the country, and the need for a national solar workforce training pro-gram.

• Prof. Joseph Sarubbi is the Chair of the Building Systems Technology De-partment at Hudson Valley Community College. Prof. Sarubbi will testify onhis ground-level experience in creating a solar workforce training program, in-cluding his partnership with local businesses and the State of New York indeveloping a successful curriculum.

• Dr. David Arvizu is the Director of the Department of Energy’s National Re-newable Energy Laboratory. Dr. Arvizu will testify on the DOE’s currentsolar research and development activities, and on his views regarding the pro-posed legislation.


5

Ms. GIFFORDS. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Research,Education and Training Programs to Facilitate Adoption of SolarEnergy Technologies.’’ I want to thank Chairman Gordon, RankingMember Hall, Chairman Lampson and Ranking Member Inglis forholding this hearing on solar energy this morning. Solar energy of-fers one of the best solutions to the greatest challenges facing ournation, global warming, dependence on foreign oil and concernsabout American competitiveness.

It has tremendous potential across the United States, especiallyin regions like Southern Arizona, where we have over 300 days ofsunshine every single year.

Solar energy, as we all know, is a nonpartisan issue. The sunbeats down on Republicans and Democrats and Independents withequal intensity, and we could all benefit from harnessing the powerof the sun. It stimulates business development. It creates new jobs,helps protect our environment, and promotes energy independence.

My legislation, entitled the Solar Energy Research and Advance-ment Act of 2007, will move solar energy forward by targeting someof the gaps that several experts have identified in our nationalsolar energy strategy.

Today we are going to hear from experts on the discussion draftthat was earlier circulated. This is a great first step in the overallsolar energy agenda for the 110th Congress. I am considering otherpieces of legislation and I know that other House committees arelooking at solar-related bills as well. As we move forward, the cu-mulative efforts to focus on the use of solar energy should be verypositive.

Let me briefly summarize the four components of this bill. Thefirst component would establish a Thermal Energy Storage Re-search and Development Program within the Department of En-ergy. This will help us solve perhaps the most significant problemwith concentrated solar power technology: energy storage. We needmore advanced technology so that we can store solar energy pro-duced during the day and use it at night or on a cloudy day. Thisis all about energy reliability and viability. We need to assure thepublic that they will have enough electricity when the sun goesdown and when they need it.

The second component would require DOE to conduct two con-centrating solar power commercial application studies. One wouldstudy methods to integrate concentrated solar power energy intoregional electricity transmission systems. The best time of the dayto produce and use solar energy is from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. We needto research how to connect the major solar power plants to the elec-tric grid, relieve expensive demand on electric utilities and usesolar energy during these peak hours. It also makes sense to exam-ine how to bring electricity from high solar resource areas like Ari-zona and Nevada to other parts of the United States that haveother energy needs as well.

The other study would require DOE to inform Congress on meth-ods to reduce the amount of water consumed by concentrating solarpower systems. CSP has its greatest potential in the southwestUnited States, and like all power plants, it requires tremendoususe of water. Given the strain on water resources already in this


6

region, we must research ways to research water consumption sothat we can realize the benefits of CSP technology.

The third component of the legislation will authorize a competi-tive grant program at DOE to create and strengthen solar industryworkforce training and internship programs in installation, oper-ation and maintenance of solar energy products. The goal of thisprogram is to ensure an adequate supply of well-trained individ-uals to support the expansion of the solar energy industry. If wewant to increase our use of solar energy, we have to make surethat we have a trained and qualified workforce. This section willpromote job growth in a fast-growing solar industry.

Lastly, we have got beef for dinner and we have all got milk, butwho has gone solar? The fourth component of this bill will createa Solar Energy Industries Research and Commercial ApplicationBoard to plan and coordinate projects of research and commercialapplication, certification, information and other purposes of benefitto the application of solar technologies and educate people on whywe need to be doing this. This public-private partnership will alsohelp the general public understand how they can benefit from solarenergy technology. I want to note that this program will be paidfor by the solar industry and will cost the taxpayer absolutely noth-ing. It is important to my constituents and all the other people’sconstituents as well.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of theaisle to pass this important legislation.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Giffords follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

I want to thank Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, Chairman Lampson,and Ranking Member Inglis for holding this hearing on solar energy today.

Solar energy offers one of the best solutions to the greatest challenges facing ournation—global warming, dependence on foreign oil, and concerns about Americancompetitiveness.

It has tremendous potential across the United States, especially in regions likeSouthern Arizona, where we have over 300 days of sunshine every year.

Solar energy is a non-partisan issue. The sun beats down on Democrats, Repub-licans, and Independents with equal intensity, and we can all benefit from har-nessing the power of the sun.

It stimulates business development, creates new jobs, helps protect our environ-ment, and promotes energy independence.

My legislation, entitled the Solar Energy Research and Advancement Act of 2007,will move solar energy forward by targeting some of the gaps that several expertshave identified in our national solar energy strategy.

Today, we will hear expert opinions on the discussion draft that was circulated.This is a great first step in the overall solar energy agenda for the 110th Con-

gress. I am considering other pieces of legislation, and I know that other House com-mittees are looking at solar-related bills. As we move forward, the cumulative ef-forts to advance the use of solar energy should be very positive.

Let me briefly summarize the four components of this bill.The first component would establish a ‘‘Thermal Energy Storage Research and

Development Program’’ within the Department of Energy. This will help us solveperhaps the most significant problem with concentrating solar power technology: en-ergy storage. We need more advanced technology so that we can store solar energyproduced during the day and use it at night or on a cloudy day. This is all aboutenergy reliability and viability. We need to assure the public that they will haveenough electricity when the sun goes down.

The second component would require DOE to conduct two ‘‘Concentrating SolarPower Commercial Application Studies.’’

One would study methods to integrate concentrating solar power energy into re-gional electricity transmission systems. The best time of the day to produce and usesolar energy is from 10 a.m.-5 p.m. We need to research how to connect major solar


7

power plants to the electric grid, relieve expensive demand on electric utilities, anduse solar energy during these peak hours. It also makes sense to examine how tobring electricity from high solar resource areas, like Arizona and Nevada, to meetenergy needs throughout the United States.

The other study would require DOE to inform Congress on methods to reduce theamount of water consumed by concentrating solar power systems. CSP has its great-est potential in the Southwest United States, and like all power plants, it requiresthe use of water. Given the strain on water resources in this region, we must re-search ways to reduce water consumption so that we can realize the benefits of CSPtechnology.

The third component of this legislation will authorize a competitive grant programat DOE to create and strengthen solar industry workforce training and internshipprograms in installation, operation, and maintenance of solar energy products. Thegoal of this program is to ensure an adequate supply of well-trained individuals tosupport the expansion of the solar energy industry. If we want to increase our useof solar energy, we have got to make sure that we have a trained, qualified work-force. This section will promote job growth in the fast-growing solar industry.

Lastly, we’ve got beef for dinner, and we’ve all got milk. But who’s gone solar?The fourth component of this bill will create a Solar Energy Industries Research andCommercial Application Board to plan and coordinate projects of research, commer-cial application, certification, information, and other purposes of benefit to the appli-cation of solar technologies. This public-private partnership will also help the gen-eral public understand how they can benefit from solar energy technology. I wantto note that this program will be paid for by the solar industry and will cost thetaxpayer absolutely nothing.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to passthis important legislation.

Ms. GIFFORDS. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Memberfrom South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, for an opening statement.

Mr. INGLIS. I thank the Chair for holding this legislative hearingon facilitating the adoption of solar energy technologies.

Solar energy occupies just a sliver of the global energy market.However, when you consider the Earth receives more energy fromthe sun in just one hour than the world uses in a whole year, itmakes sense that we should look into making that thin sliver intoa big piece of the energy pie. With some advancements in tech-nology and conversion efficiencies, solar will fit the bill for our en-ergy goals: clean, renewable and abundant.

Today we are going to discuss draft legislation that seeks to ad-dress ways that the Federal Government can help speed commer-cial viability of solar energy. I look forward to hearing from our ex-pert panel of witnesses as to how we might meet our goals.

Madam Chairman, as we discuss these proposals today and moveto markup, I hope we give adequate time to make this bill as goodas it can be. America’s scientists, engineers, inventors and entre-preneurs realize the potential of solar power and other renewablesources, and I hope we can set policies that facilitate the develop-ment, the best development of those sources.

Thank you again for holding the hearing and I look forward tohearing from our witnesses.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this legislative hearing onfacilitating the adoption of solar energy technologies.

Solar energy occupies just a sliver of the global energy market. However, whenyou consider that the Earth receives more energy from the sun in just one hour thanthe world uses in a whole year, it makes sense that we should look into makingthat thin sliver into a big piece of the energy pie. With some advancements in tech-nology and conversion efficiencies, solar will fit the bill for our energy goals: clean,renewable, and abundant.


8

Today, we’re going to discuss draft legislation that seeks to address ways that theFederal Government can help speed commercial viability of solar energy. I look for-ward to hearing from our expert panel of witnesses as to how we might meet ourgoals.

Mr. Chairman, as we discuss this proposal today, and move to markup, I hopewe give adequate time to make the bill as good as it can be. America’s scientists,engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs realize the potential of solar power andother renewable sources, and I hope we can set policies that facilitate the develop-ment of these sources.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and I look forward to hearing from our wit-nesses.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening

statements, your statements will be added to the record at thispoint.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK LAMPSON

I am very pleased to be here this morning to discuss the legislation proposed bymy colleague from Arizona, Rep. Giffords. Solar energy holds great promise and po-tential to deliver clean, affordable electricity to homes and businesses across the Na-tion.

Rep. Giffords has identified several areas where federal support could further thegoal of diversifying our energy supply by expanding the adoption of solar energytechnologies. The basic and applied research and development programs that wehave invested in through the Department of Energy over the years have yielded sig-nificant advancements in solar energy technologies. Our challenge now is to movethese technologies into the market place more aggressively.

I also serve on the Committee on Agriculture. In the agricultural sector, USDAhas managed numerous promotion programs for agricultural commodities that havehelped to educate consumers about the nutritional benefits of different foods andhave expanded markets for all commodity producers. I believe it provides a goodmodel for solar energy technologies and will deliver additional applied research andinformation designed to communicate with the general public to support the entiresolar industry.

My home State of Texas has moved aggressively to encourage the developmentof renewable energy. We have abundant solar resources that could be used to fur-ther expand our renewable energy portfolio. As several of our witnesses will pointout today, the U.S. has significant solar potential that we are not yet taking fulladvantage of. We can no longer afford to overlook obvious opportunities to diversifyour energy supply.

I commend my colleague for her work on this legislation and I look forward tomoving it forward in our committee very soon. We have an excellent panel of wit-nesses today that will help us to refine this legislation and expand our use of theabundant, clean source of energy.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good Morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding today’s hearing to receivetestimony on the discussion draft legislation sponsored by Congresswoman Giffords.The bill establishes research, education, and training programs to facilitate theadoption of solar energy technologies.

My home State of Illinois has a plentiful supply of coal, which is why our regionspecializes in clean coal research and demonstration projects. In the West, solar en-ergy and thermal energy storage is also an environmentally friendly energy source.Regardless of where you live in the country, I believe it is important to invest inmultiple energy sources to ensure the U.S. has diverse a energy portfolio.

Specifically, the Discussion Draft with regard to thermal energy storage addressesan important issue related to solar energy and its impact on utilities. Adding ther-mal storage to concentrated solar power (CSP) plants enables solar energy to be apotentially provided at a low cost, which is critical for our nation’s economy. Fur-ther, the discussion draft also addresses transmission integration, an importantissue for CSP plants.


9

Similar to clean coal technologies, cost is the greatest obstacle with regard to pro-ducing solar power. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the solarresearch and information program for the solar industry authorized in the bill wouldhelp to support research and promote the adoption of solar power across the Nation.With that, I again thank the Chairman for calling this hearing.

Ms. GIFFORDS. At this time I would like to introduce our fabu-lous, fabulous panel of witnesses with some Arizona connections, Iwould also like to point out. I always bring it back to Arizona. Wehave Mr. Hayden, who is Solar Technology Coordinator for ArizonaPublic Service Corporation. Mr. Rhone Resch is the President ofthe Solar Energy Industries Association. Ms. Jane Weissman is theExecutive Director of the Interstate Renewable Energy Council andthe Vice-Chair of the North American Board of Certified EnergyPractitioners. I just have to mention that Ms. Weissman earlier hastalked about 1991 at the Westford Look Hotel in Tucson where alot of this work actually began, so I think that is pretty interesting.We also have Professor Joseph Sarubbi, who is the Chair of theBuilding Systems Technology Department at Hudson Valley Com-munity College, and Mr. Daniel Arvizu, who is the Director of theDepartment of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratoryand originally from Douglas, Arizona. So that is very cool.

So as our witnesses should know, spoken testimony, we wouldlike to try to limit to five minutes after which the Members of theCommittee will have five minutes to ask questions, and as far asI know, we are okay on time in terms of votes, so no particularpressure here to speed through this. But let us get going with Mr.Hayden, please.

STATEMENT OF MR. HERBERT T. HAYDEN, SOLAR TECH-NOLOGY COORDINATOR, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COM-PANY, PHOENIX, ARIZONAMr. HAYDEN. Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee,

my name is Herbert T. Hayden. I am the solar technology coordi-nator for Arizona Public Service Company, APS, in Arizona. Thankyou for the opportunity to testify to you today regarding concen-trating solar power, or CSP. CSP is a technology of great interestto APS for its potential to provide lower cost and more-reliablesolar power in the desert Southwest.

I would like to submit my written comments to you and brieflysummarize them now on the main points, which are, number one,the importance of thermal energy storage to the viability of concen-trating solar power; number two, the importance of reduction ofwater use to the viability of concentrating solar; and number three,how a study to integrate concentrating solar power plants with theelectric grid can facilitate the commercialization and implementa-tion of large-scale CSP.

APS is the largest and longest serving electric power utility inArizona, the fastest growing state in the Nation. We are addingcustomers at three times the national average and electricity de-mand is growing at four times the national average. To meet thisrapid growth in electricity demand, Arizona’s electric utilities areinvesting over $2 billion a year in infrastructure. Plans for the fu-ture include conventional generation, new transmission and dis-tribution, and an increased focus on conservation and cost-effectiverenewable energy resources.


10

In Arizona, our most abundant renewable resource is sunshine.For the past 15 years, my responsibility has been to work with thesolar industry and researchers around the United States and theworld to bring lower cost and reliable solar electricity to our cus-tomers. From a technology perspective, our primary focus has beenon technologies that can be lower cost on a utility scale in the near-term. As early as 1995, the APS STAR Center was a test site fordish Stirling systems and for the advancement of concentrating PVsystems, both of which are forms of concentrating solar power.Based on inquiries from companies around the world, it seemsclear that our work has helped stimulate the growing interest inconcentrating solar power technology.

One of the most successful CSP technologies to date are the solartrough systems that use solar heat to drive turbine engines andgenerators. For more than a decade, solar trough plants in Cali-fornia have been the largest collection of solar power in the worldand they have operated well. CSP is currently the most cost-effec-tive solar technology for large-scale use and has the potential tocompete with conventional generation in the near- to mid-term.

Because of this potential, last year APS completed the first solartrough plant in the United States in over 14 years, the one-mega-watt APS Saguaro Solar Trough plant near Tucson, Arizona. Ourintent of that project was to help reestablish and again advance theU.S. solar trough technology. In short order, the APS plant was fol-lowed by a much larger project in Nevada which has benefited fromthe new solar collector design experience gained in the APS project.

An important attribute of the CSP systems is the ability to incor-porate thermal storage into the design to improve the reliability ofpower output. This is an extremely important feature that manyintermittent renewable resources such as PV and wind do not have.All renewables have value for the ability to help reduce the use offossil fuels but the ability to store the thermal energy for timeswhen it is needed provides for a reliability that does not exist withintermittent resources. This is especially critical to utilities becausethey have the obligation to provide reliable power at all times. Itis commonly considered that solar provides power when it is need-ed the most, during the daytime. This is largely true but there arefluctuations due to clouds and a rolloff of solar before the late dayhours of high power consumption. For example, power consumptionin Arizona reaches a peak in the months of July, August and Sep-tember and the summer heat results in heavy air conditioningloads. During that period, Arizonans use the most energy between5 and 7 p.m. when they go home, increase the air conditioning anddo things for their lives. But unfortunately, the solar resourcepeaks sometime in the mid-afternoon and tails off significantly asthe sun lowers on the horizon. Thermal storage has the potentialto bridge the gap between maximum solar generation and peakcustomer demand by extending the hours of operation sufficientlyto cover much of the evening demand.

There has already been some support in the national labs for thedevelopment of thermal storage concept and we recognize and ap-preciate that past support. However, the resources are apparentlylimited in comparison to the substantial expense of a meaningfuldevelopment and test plant. Certainly a dedicated research and de-


11

velopment program on thermal storage could significantly accel-erate the use of this promising technology.

Another key area for improvement of CSP is water use. The cur-rent design of large CSP plants use water simply for cooling apower plant in the same way that water is used for conventionalpower plant cooling. Though CSP technology has been successfulwith its current water cooling approaches, growth in the desert hasplaced ever-increasing demands on water use and reductions inwater use would increase the attractiveness of CSP.

On the third topic relating to CSP of the study of integratinglarge CSP plants into the regional and national electric grid, it istrue that planning for CSP does raise numerous issues includingthe availability of land, land-use issues such as water and permit-ting, and increasingly, the availability of transmission facilities andtransmission capacity to deliver the energy to load centers from theareas where solar might be developed. Transmission is generallyconstrained in much of the West and significant new transmissioninvestment is needed in the coming years for all types of genera-tion, renewable or conventional. The Southwestern states and utili-ties, including APS, are considering the needs and benefits fortransmission to ensure a robust grid to meet the needs of theWest’s rapidly growing population. A federal study of the potentialfor the integration of CSP into the transmission plans would betimely and supportive of the further commercial implementation ofCSP and could help address the same kind of issues that have beenencountered in the successful growth of the wind industry.

So finally, we are currently leading a group of southwestern utili-ties in the exploration of a 250-megawatt CSP plant to be built inthe Southwest. In the process, we have run into these issues—transmission, water, et cetera. Also, land on federal land could beconsidered.

So finally, I would just say that we believe, APS believes thatlarge-scale CSP has very good potential to provide cost-effective en-ergy to the United States. We also believe that the U.S. industrieshave still been a leader in concentrating technologies and have theopportunity to benefit by that, and finally that CSP can be im-proved with the additional of thermal storage and with reductionof water use and the proper integration of CSP in the national grid.

Thank you, Madam Chairman and the Members of the Com-mittee for the opportunity to share these observations with you,and I would be available to answer questions if I can. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayden follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HERBERT T. HAYDEN

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to provide testimonyto you regarding 1) the importance of thermal energy storage technology to the via-bility of concentrating solar power, and 2) how a study to integrate concentratingsolar power plants with the electric grid can facilitate the commercialization and im-plementation of large-scale CSP.

Arizona Public Service Company (APS) is the largest and longest serving electricpower utility in Arizona. Arizona is also the fastest growing state in the UnitedStates. APS is adding customers at three times the national average and our cus-tomers’ electricity demand is growing at four times the national average. To meetthis rapid growth in electricity demand Arizona’s electric utilities are investing over$2 billion a year in infrastructure. Plans for the future include conventional genera-tion, new transmission and distribution and an increased focus on conservation andcost effective renewable energy resources.


12

In Arizona our most abundant renewable resource is sunshine. And, for the past15 years, my responsibility has been to work with the solar industry and research-ers around the U.S. and the world to bring lower cost and reliable solar electricityto our customers.

APS’ first work in the solar technology area was .in 1954 when APS helped orga-nize the first International Solar Energy Exposition in Phoenix, AZ that lead to theformation of the International Solar Energy Society. In the 1970’s, APS appliedearly solar PV technology in remote off-grid telecommunications applications, andsince the early 1980’s APS has been an active participant in the study and develop-ment of solar energy for large scale utility use.

In 1988, the APS Solar Technology Applied Research (STAR) center was devel-oped to support the advancement of solar resources, including field operation of bothphotovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar technologies. Our early work at STARgave APS the expertise and experience to undertake several noteworthy projects in-cluding Arizona’s first customer-sited PV systems tied to the grid, and Arizona’sfirst utility scale grid-tied solar PV system. APS is proud to provide solar servicesto the National Park Service and several military bases in Arizona to assist withthe use of PV in support of remote off-grid operations. And, we currently have overfive MW of PV tracker power plants in operation providing reliable solar energy toour customers.

From a technology development perspective our primary focus has been on largescale solar technologies. As early as 1995, APS STAR center was a test site for thedish Stirling systems, and the advancement of Concentrating PV (CPV) systems. Wehave more then 10 years experience operating silicon CPV, and three years ago in-stalled the Nation’s first grid-tied triple-junction high concentration PV system.Based upon inquiries from companies around the world it seems clear that our CPVwork has helped stimulate new interest in CPV technology. And while there is sig-nificant CPV work now being undertaken in other countries, it is my belief that theUnited States remains in the technological lead of this very promising solar tech-nology.

In another very promising technology area, APS has supported the advancementof concentrating solar power (CSP). These technologies are ‘‘thermal electric sys-tems’’ that use solar heat to drive engines and generators. CSP thermal systems in-clude solar trough concentrator systems and central receiver (power tower) systemsthat use many mirrors to focus light on a central solar collector. CSP also includesolar dish Stirling systems and other advanced solar concepts.

The solar trough systems are worth particular note. For more then a decade solartrough systems in California have been the largest collection of solar power in theworld, and they have operated well. CSP is also currently the most cost effectivesolar technology and has the greatest potential to compete economically with con-ventional generation in the near to mid-term.

Because of this potential, just last year, APS constructed the first solar troughplant in the U.S. in over 14 years. Our intent was to help to re-establish and againadvance the U.S. solar trough technology. The plant is the one MW APS SaguaroSolar Trough plant, near Tucson, Arizona.

While not part of the Saguaro design, an important attribute of the solar thermalCSP systems is the ability to incorporate thermal storage techniques into the designto improve the reliability of power output. This is an extremely important featurethat many intermittent renewable resources such as PV and wind do not have.While all renewables have value for their ability to help reduce the use of fossilfuels, the ability to store the thermal energy for times when its needed provides alevel of reliability that does not exist with intermittent resources. This is especiallycritical to utilities that have an obligation to provide reliable power at all times.

Common wisdom is that solar technologies produce power when it is needed themost, during the daytime. While this is largely true, there are exceptions that arenot obvious such as fluctuations due to clouds and a mismatch to late-day powerconsumption. This latter exception is the norm for Arizona and most of the desertsouthwest. In the southwest, power consumption reaches its peak in the months ofJuly, August and September, when the summer heat result in heavy air condi-tioning loads. The correlation between power consumption and high summer tem-peratures are a good match for CSP however the correlation is not as perfect as onemight expect. In a 24 hour period, Arizonan’s use the most energy in the earlyevening, between 5 and 7 p.m., when they return home from work, turn down theair conditioning, cook dinner, do laundry and generally go about their lives. Unfor-tunately, solar electricity production, even from CSP, does not match this hourly de-mand profile very well. Solar electricity production reaches its peak levels sometimein the mid-afternoon and tails off significantly in the early evening as the sun low-


13

ers on the horizon. Thermal storage has the potential to bridge the gap betweenmaximum generation and peak demand.

Without the availability of solar energy during the peak, utilities must look toother reliable resources like natural gas to meet customer demand. But, thermalstorage has the real potential to change utility resource decisions because with stor-age CSP systems will be able to reliably serve customers when electricity costs arethe highest.

There currently exists some support in the national labs for the development ofthe thermal storage concept, which we recognize and appreciate. However the re-sources are apparently limited in comparison to the substantial expense of a mean-ingful development and test plant. Certainly a dedicated research and developmentprogram on thermal storage could significantly accelerate the use of this promisingtechnology.

The second topic of discussion relating to CSP is the integration of large CSPplants into the regional and national electric grid. This topic raises numerous issuesincluding availability of land for large scale installation, land-use issues such aswater use and permitting and the availability of transmission facilities and trans-mission capacity to deliver the energy to load centers. The cost, timing and risksassociated with each of these factors must also be considered.

One additional aspect of large scale CSP that must be considered is the statusof financial incentives. Currently, the 30 percent Investment Tax Credit (ITC) forsolar has resulted in projected project costs that are significantly more competitivethan any time in the past. But without a long-term extension of the ITC, many largescale CSP projects will never be launch due to the time it takes to address theissues noted in the preceding paragraph. Large scale CSP plants require three tofive years from commitment to start up Today, the ITC is set to expire at the endof 2008. The one to two year ITC extensions that have been typical in previousyears, will not provide sufficient certainty to enable major CSP development. Long-term extension of the ITC is critical to CSP development.

One critical aspect of the ITC is the fact that it is not available to public utilities.The restriction needlessly narrows application of the credit and is unfair to U.S. citi-zens because the vast majority purchase power from a public utility, as it is definedby the tax code. Therefore, a utility wishing to plan a large CSP resource wouldneed to assume no ITC, or secure a third-party owner of the plant. This current pol-icy forcing a third-party relationship to take advantage of the ITC creates unneces-sary uncertainty and costs to the system. It forces the utility and regional grid toconsider the operational and financial risks inherent in any third party relationshipthus affecting the utility operating strategies. These risks can certainly be analyzedand managed but create a potential sub-optimum situation when they are the onlystrategy available.

While there are numerous issues to be addressed, APS is bullish about CSP andis leading a group of southwestern utilities exploring a 250 MW CSP plant in thedesert southwest. We have found several constraints to a successful project includ-ing the financial factors associated with the end of the ITC in 2008, and the lackof transmission capacity. In fact, transmission is generally constrained in much ofthe west and significant new transmission investment is needed in the coming yearsfor all types of generation be they renewable or conventional generation. New trans-mission is being planned throughout the west and in California and Texas specifi-cally to access renewable resources including wind and geothermal. Others statesand utilities, including APS, are studying their needs for both intra and interstatetransmission to ensure a robust grid to meet the needs of the West’s burgeoningpopulation. The studies include the ability to reach those areas of the west withabundant low cost renewable resources.

Answers to the questions about CSP, and indeed renewables in general, are notsimple. Intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar present specialeconomic challenges for transmission investment because they do not efficiently uti-lize the transmission investment at all times. Wind integration studies have and arebeing performed. We believe CSP has a significant potential to provide largeamounts of renewable energy to the U.S. and that a federal study on transmissionfor large scale CSP would be beneficial and appropriate.

Finally the issue of locating large scale CSP on federal land should be inves-tigated and analyzed. By its nature, solar technologies require significant geo-graphic footprints. A general rule of thumb for a solar installation is five to 10 acresper megawatt. That means for a single 250 megawatt facility, 1,250 to 2,500 contig-uous acres of land would be required. Considering that the Federal Government isthe largest land owner in the U.S., a study of federal land in high solar resourceareas that may be made available for CSP development would also be beneficial andappropriate.


14

In summary, APS is proud of its contributions to the advancement of solar tech-nologies including CSP, but more needs to be done. APS believes that large scaleCSP has the best potential to provide cost effective solar energy to the U.S. and thispotential improves dramatically with the addition of thermal storage. Under-standing how these large CSP installations will impact the regional and nationalgrid must be understood. We support federal funding for a CSP integration study.We encourage additional federal attention and support for CSP and welcome the op-portunity to continue to work with the U.S. national labs and the solar industry onthe further advancement of solar resources into our national energy portfolio.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and the Members of the Committee for the opportunityto share these observations and opinions with you.

BIOGRAPHY FOR HERBERT T. HAYDEN

Since 1993, Herb Hayden has led the development, construction and operation ofsolar power plants for APS, the largest and longest-serving electric utility in Ari-zona. Over six Megawatts (MW) of solar generation has been installed to date byAPS, including photovoltaic (PV) and advanced concentrator solar power systems(CSP). These CSP systems include Concentrating PV (CPV) and one MW of Concen-trating Solar Trough thermal generating systems.

Herb has managed the development of new solar technologies that have placedAPS in a leadership role for solar systems of particular promise for utility use.These include larger-scale PV tracking systems using present-day commercial PVpanels, and the high concentration PV (CPV) and dish-engine systems that areemerging to address the price and supply limitations of conventional PV products.Much of this work is visible at the APS Solar Test And Research (STAR) center,where new solar technologies are under test in the Arizona environment.

In addition to grid-connected solar, Herb initiated the development of the APS Re-mote Solar Electric Service. This program provided off-grid solar power services to50 homes and ranches in Arizona, as well as several unique larger scale ‘‘solar hy-brid’’ systems for military, national park and commercial customers in the U.S.southwest and Mexico.

Herb is a PE in Arizona, having received his BSEE with honors from ArizonaState University in 1983. Prior to his solar work at APS, Herb performed projectmanagement and engineering for APS telecommunications systems, and workedfour years at Motorola in the development of advanced electronic systems.

Solar technology participation areas:• Over six MW of solar generation currently installed and operating• Development and operation of 500 kW of CPV, in collaboration with Amonix

Inc.• Formation of Concentrating Technologies LLC, developing an advanced new

triple-junction CPV product in collaboration with Spectrolab• First Dish Stirling utility installation in Arizona, in collaboration with SAIC

and Stirling Thermal Motors, plus studies of advanced Dish Turbine concepts• Demonstration of the solar generation of hydrogen using Dish Stirling, and

the reversible use of hydrogen to generate electricity using the Stirling engine• Development of the APS large two-axis tracker system for high concentrating

solar (320 m2 per unit tracking area)• Development of APS Single-Axis horizontal tracker PV system• Development of APS Single-Axis Tilted Tracker PV system• The first use, and APS development role in Shingleton single-axis tracker,

which later was purchased by Powerlight and sold as their Powertracker• Formation of FWR LLC, manufacturer of solar tracking control electronics,

and data acquisition equipment• Development of APS Remote Solar Electric Service, providing and maintain-

ing small hybrid PV systems for service to remote homes, ranches and largerscale uses

• Working relationships with NREL, Sandia National Labs, Arizona State Uni-versity, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Weizmann Institute of Science SolarInstitute

• Served as member of DOE Concentrating Solar Power Peer Review Commis-sion, 2002

• Several patents, and several papers on high concentration PV and solar track-ing systems, numerous international presentations


15

Patents:• Four patents awarded for solar tracking systems and controls• Four additional patent applications in process

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Hayden.Mr. Resch, please.

STATEMENT OF MR. RHONE RESCH, PRESIDENT, SOLARENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION

Mr. RESCH. Thank you, Chairman Lampson, CongresswomanGiffords and the Members of the Subcommittee for providing methe opportunity to testify on these important issues this morning.

My name is Rhone Resch. I am President of the Solar Energy In-dustries Association, a trade group here in Washington that rep-resents over 500 companies and over 20,000 people employed in theU.S. solar energy industry including hundreds of small businessesthroughout the United States.

I would like to thank the Committee and its staff for providingtrue leadership in advancing solar energy in the United States. Akey element of leadership is providing the opportunity to empowerothers to lead and today you seek to empower individual Americansto strengthen our energy independence, to become high-tech work-ers, adopters and advocates for solar technologies that can helpmeet America’s energy challenges in the 21st century.

With regard to the establishment of a check-off program forsolar, I would like to convey three points. First, the high priority—the highest priority for the solar energy industry is the creation ofa long-term incentive for solar to help lower costs and provide aclear market signal to manufacturers to actually expand produc-tion. Only then will we have a supply to meet the demand of aneducated market and only then will a check-off program succeed.Second, solar energy technologies provide significant energy secu-rity, environmental, and economic benefits to the American publicand must be a significant part of our energy portfolio going for-ward. And third, the solar industry would greatly benefit from thecreation of a federal check-off program just as dozens of other U.S.industries have benefited from these programs.

While solar prices have dropped by 90 percent in the last 25years, solar is still two to three times as expensive as the nationalretail electricity rates. Furthermore, the United States has beeneclipsed by Germany, Japan and China in the manufacturing anduse of solar. Incredibly, Germany installs eight times the amountof solar each year as the United States despite having the sameamount of sunlight as Anchorage, Alaska, as you can see from thismap here. When you do look at that map, you can see that theUnited States really does have world-class solar resources in all 50states. Certainly if you can make solar work well in Germany, youcan make it work well in all 50 states in the United States. ButGermany enjoys market leadership because its government has en-acted long-term incentive policies that have jump-started the in-stallation market. Congress is currently considering legislation toextend the federal solar investment tax credits for homeowners andbusinesses, H.R. 550, the Securing America’s Energy IndependenceAct. Specifically, these bills will create an eight-year extension inexpansion of the ITC for commercial systems and an eight-year ex-


16

tension in expansion for the residential systems. I want to com-mend Chairman Gordon, Subcommittee Ranking Member Inglis,Congresswoman Giffords, Congressman Udall, Congressman Baird,Congressman Bartlett, Congressman McCaul for co-sponsoring thisimportant legislation without which a check-off program would notgalvanize in the United States. We need to have this policy supportin place to make the domestic industry competitive in the globalmarketplace for solar technologies, and I respectfully request thatthe Committee reach out to Chairman Rangel of the Ways andMeans Committee and ask him to support the provisions in H.R.550 and the tax title of the energy bill which will be marked uptomorrow.

Solar energy is the Nation’s most abundant energy resource andit can greatly improve the U.S.’s ability to have a secure and reli-able energy supply. Solar requires no field to operate and our pan-els are warrantied to last for 20 to 25 years, and you will see apanel being put up here in just a minute, and this is one of thethings to point out. Once you install—once you buy and install asolar system on your house, it is like buying a car with all the gasyou will need for it for its entire lifetime. Sure, it has most of acost upfront but it will hedge the consumer against rising energyprices in the future. And on a community scale, solar can help sta-bilize volatile electricity prices and relieve tight markets for nat-ural gas by reducing demand during midday peak when the mostexpensive, least efficient generation is used.

Moreover, solar is the cleanest method of electricity generation.Electricity for solar produces no air pollution, no water pollution,no noise pollution, no radiation, no solid waste, has no impact onwildlife, except maybe inconveniencing the squirrels that are run-ning around on your roof, and uses no water for generating elec-tricity, an increasingly important issue for the fast-growing com-munities of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, California and Colorado,as Herb just pointed out.

As we begin to tackle climate change in a real manner, keep inmind that over the 40- to 50-year life of a solar electric system,every kilowatt of solar electric power reduces 217,000 pounds ofCO2.

Finally, as today’s hearing demonstrates, there are tremendouseconomic benefits to be gained form increasing our use of solar en-ergy. Solar photovoltaic creates 32 jobs per megawatt, more thanany other form of energy. Solar could provide more than tens ofthousands of new jobs in the coming decade in manufacturing, en-gineering, construction and installation, investing America’s energydollars in America’s workers.

If we are to begin harnessing this potential, we must signifi-cantly increase consumer education and awareness of solar tech-nologies. While the public strongly supports the increased use ofsolar, market research shows a broad gap in the understandingthat solar electricity operates just like regular electricity and thatsolar can work anywhere in the United States. Many outdated mis-conceptions exist that the technology must be overcome in order forconsumers’ use to increase of solar. As you can see, this is a solarelectric panel. Most people still think that solar looks like the tech-nology on Skylab, checkerboard pattern, inefficient use. This is


17

made by a company in the United States. It looks like a flat-screenTV. It is the most efficient panel made in the world, 22 percent effi-cient, absolutely gorgeous. I actually put it up on my house lastyear. It generates about 85 percent of my electricity right here inWashington, D.C. It is very exciting. But consumers lack the infor-mation on how to find solar companies and what solar productsmight be available, and most solar installation companies are smallbusinesses, typically employing no more than a few dozen peopleand lacking the budget to reduce a broad swath of consumers.

So in short, the solar industry needs to launch a national aware-ness campaign and numerous other industries have provided uswith a blueprint to do so. Congressionally created check-off pro-grams have served as the backbone of many industries’ successfulpromotion campaigns. Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all familiarwith the dairy industry’s ‘‘Got Milk,’’ the cotton industry’s ‘‘Cotton,The Fabric Of Our Lives’’ and the National Pork Board’s ‘‘Pork,The Other White Meat.’’ But Mr. Chairman, no pork was involvedin the creation of these campaigns, at least no Congressional pork.Rather, these industries pooled their resources through a com-prehensive program to fund consumer education. A ‘‘Got Solar’’ pro-gram, if you will, would provide major benefits to the Americanpublic. Consumers would be able to obtain market information onproduct and company quality and become educated about local andnational energy use patterns. Meanwhile, local solar installerswould benefit from broad public outreach that they would other-wise be unable to afford and see the resultant growth in their busi-ness.

To be clear, consumer awareness is only one major obstacle tothe widespread use of solar and a check-off program can only workif we have proper market incentives and market mechanisms inplace.

I want to thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity tospeak, and I am available to answer any questions that you mayhave.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Resch follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RHONE RESCH

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for providing methe opportunity to testify today.

On behalf of over 500 companies and more than 20,000 employees in the U.S.solar energy industry, I would like to express support for the Solar Energy Researchand Advancement Act of 2007, legislation that would help solar energy to makemajor strides in contributing to a clean, domestic, renewable supply of electricitythat is of, by, and for the American people. SEIA applauds CongresswomanGabrielle Giffords for her visionary leadership in introducing this bill.

My comments today will focus on the importance of a solar check-off program, or‘‘Got Solar,’’ to the future utilization of solar energy resources in the U.S. Aside fromcost, the greatest obstacle to solar reaching a wider domestic market is educationand public awareness. With respect to a ‘‘Got Solar’’ program, I would like to conveythe following points:

• Greater use of carbon-smart, domestic solar energy would have myriad energysecurity, economic, and environmental benefits for the American public.

• While the public broadly supports the greater use of solar energy, most Amer-icans do not have a basic understanding of solar technology products or howto purchase them.


18

• Educating the public on solar energy is primarily the responsibility of thesolar industry, but most solar installers are small businesses that lack themeans to reach a broader swathe of consumers.

• Building on dozens of U.S. industries’ successful examples, Congress shouldestablish a coordinated program of promotion and research, funded by indus-try at no cost to the government, to increase consumer education about solarenergy.

• Finally, a check-off program will only succeed if appropriate incentives are inplace, including an eight-year extension of the federal investment tax credits(ITC).

Public Benefits of Solar EnergyThe U.S. solar energy industry is growing and providing more carbon-smart, do-

mestic energy every year. Solar energy technologies can provide major energy secu-rity, environmental, and economic benefits to the American public, all of which willbe realized with broader consumer awareness and adoption of solar.Energy Security

As Congress looks to increase the use of carbon-smart renewable energy, it is crit-ical that priority be placed on technologies that also improve U.S. energy security.Solar energy, in all of its forms, is a technology that can greatly improve the U.S.’sability to have a secure and reliable energy supply.

The electricity infrastructure in the U.S. is aging and energy consumers are in-creasingly subject to outages that affect critical infrastructure and disrupt business.The blackout of August 2003 in the Northeast, triggered by a tree limb landing onpower lines, cost consumers and businesses tens of billions of dollars. Unfortunately,this event is not unique and will occur with greater frequency if Congress does nottake steps to diversify our energy portfolio.

The good news is that this event could easily have been avoided through greateruse of solar energy. A 2004 Department of Energy (DOE) study entitled Solutionto the Summer Blackouts? concludes that if solar energy had met just one percentof local peak demand, we would have avoided the August 2003 blackout and otherlocal brown-outs. DOE’s explanation was simple: high air conditioning loads stressedthe grid and created the circumstances for the blackout. This extreme load occurredon one of the hottest and sunniest days during the summer—the exact time whenoutput from solar systems is greatest. DOE also concluded that over reliance on cen-tral generating stations led to grid fatigue and failure. This infrastructure vulner-ability could have been minimized through greater reliance on distributed solar en-ergy.

Photovoltaic (PV) and solar water heating systems are distributed generation(DG) technologies. Like other DG technologies, they provide energy at the point ofconsumption rather than at a central power plant hundreds of miles away. As such,DG does not rely on vulnerable regional transmission lines and local distributionnetworks. By producing energy at the source of consumption, solar power alleviatesstress and vulnerability on the grid.

The DOE study also concluded that investing in solar energy is a more economi-cally efficient and cost effective way to improve our energy infrastructure than cap-ital intensive and often community-opposed transmission line upgrades and brand-new transmission lines. In sum, using solar energy is a cost-effective, affordable wayto alleviate stress on the electricity grid and improve the overall reliability of ourelectricity infrastructure.

Solar is also the most reliable source of energy. This reliable track record has re-sulted in wide deployment of the technology in applications where power interrup-tions are unacceptable, including: oil and gas industry use of solar energy to powerpumps and meters at remote locations; telecommunications industry use of solar topower relay stations and remote equipment; and, every satellite that has been sentout into space in the last 30 years has been powered by solar energy.

Ironically, energy industry acceptance of the technology stands in stark contrastto consumer behavior. Consumers are investing hundreds of millions of dollars insmall gasoline-powered generators. During grid failure and electricity outages, elec-tronic gasoline pumps at the gas stations do not operate, rendering many generatorsidle because of fuel shortage. Solar energy is a technology that can provide reliablepower during power outages.

Finally, solar stabilizes volatile energy prices, a critical energy security issue af-fecting the U.S. today. In the last five years, consumers have seen electricity pricesescalate between 20 and 78 percent. At the same time, we have seen the price ofnatural gas triple and the price of gasoline routinely exceed $3.00 per gallon. Each


19

1 Energy Information Administration, Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer,October 2006.

year the cost of energy is taking a larger percentage of a family’s income than atany other time in U.S. history. This energy inflation vulnerability especially impactsthe poor and elderly on fixed incomes.

Solar can help address this vulnerability because it requires no fuel to operate.Although a solar system is more expensive up front, there are no additional costsfor operating a system once installed. Furthermore, solar panels are guaranteed for20–25 years, allowing consumers to ‘‘lock in’’ their electricity prices for decades. Rec-ognizing the upward trend in energy costs, incentivizing the use of a technology thatrequires no fuel inputs is an important element of any energy security plan.

Energy IndependenceSolar energy is a domestic and abundant energy source in the U.S. The U.S. has

the best solar resources of any developed country in the world. Proportionally, U.S.solar energy resources exceed those of fossil, nuclear or other renewable energy re-sources. Despite this tremendous advantage, the U.S. has failed to capture and har-ness this free and readily available energy. In 2006, solar energy produced just 1/30th of one percent of all electricity in the U.S.; Germany in contrast, with the solarresources of Alaska, installed seven times more solar energy property than the en-tire U.S.1

The U.S. is over-dependent on foreign sources of energy. Demand for natural gascontinues to rise, primarily for electricity generation. Increasingly we are turningto countries like Algeria to provide us with liquefied natural gas (LNG) to meet ourgrowing demand. According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 41 newLNG terminals are proposed for construction in U.S. harbors and off U.S. beaches.Constructing these plants will exacerbate our addiction to foreign sources of energy.Our desire for energy independence demands a different course.

Solar energy directly displaces natural gas used for heating homes and water. Ina home, solar can directly replace natural gas used to heat radiant systems and candisplace up to 70 percent of the natural gas used to generate hot water. Many coun-tries that do not have a domestic source of fossil fuels, including Spain and Israel,mandate that all new homes must have solar water heating systems installed. TheU.S. can demonstrate similar energy independence by using market incentives thatspur solar investment and market growth.

Solar energy also displaces natural gas used to generate electricity. Almost all in-termediate and peaking electricity plants use natural gas as the source of energy.These plants are often very inefficient and produce expensive electricity. Solar en-ergy, which generates electricity from 8 A.M.–7 P.M. daily, can displace these ineffi-cient, high cost power plants, and become a reliable source of firm, dispatchablepower. Given the high price of natural gas to key industrial sectors and consumers,the U.S. can no longer afford to neglect its abundant solar resources.

In addition to tempering natural gas demand growth, solar can also generate elec-tricity to be used by plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, thereby displacing gaso-line derived from foreign oil supplies. Imagine a gasoline-free electric vehicle that


20

2 NREL report, ‘‘Distributed Energy Resources for the California Local Government Commis-sion,’’ October 2000.

3 Sandia National Laboratories, Energy-Water Nexus, http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2006/environ-waste-mgmt/mapwest.html

4 NREL Report No. NREL/FS–520–24619: ‘‘Energy Payback: Clean Energy from PV’’

also uses electricity derived from the sun rather than a coal-fired plant. The tech-nology is advancing rapidly in this direction.Environmental Benefits

Though the environmental benefits of solar energy might be considered a given,it is worth highlighting several points. Solar is the cleanest method of energy gen-eration, in terms of avoided air, waste and noise pollution, energy payback, waterconservation, avoided radiation and harm to wildlife, or environmental risk in theevent of an accident.

Solar energy produces no greenhouse gases, no acid precipitation or toxic emis-sions, and no other air pollution of any kind. Over the 40–50 year life of a solarelectric system, every kilowatt (kW) of solar electric power reduces 217,000 poundsof carbon dioxide, 1500 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 830 pounds of nitrogen oxidesemissions as compared to electricity produced by conventional generation.2

Photovoltaic solar energy generates electricity without use any water. In contrast,fossil fuel and nuclear based electricity generation use substantial amounts of waterto run steam turbines. Across the western United States, approximately 40 percentof fresh water withdrawals are used for electric generation.3 If water-starved com-munities like Phoenix and Las Vegas are to continue growing, we must place great-er emphasis on water-free electricity generating technologies.

Concerns have been raised whether the energy used to produce solar panels issurpassed by the amount of energy generated from the panels. This energy relation-ship is referred to as the ‘‘energy payback period.’’ Currently, the energy paybackfor PV panels varies from 1–4 years depending on different manufacturing vari-ables. This means that a PV panel with a life expectancy of 40–50 years will gen-erate between 10 and 50 times more energy than was required to create the panel.Despite this superior ‘‘energy return on investment,’’ the manufacturing process isstill growing more efficient every year as the scale of production increases.4

Strong Public Support Exists for Greater Solar DevelopmentPolls consistently reflect that the American public strongly supports the acceler-

ated use of solar technologies. For example, a 2005 poll by the Yale Center of Envi-ronmental Law and Policy 2005 found that 90 percent of Americans support build-ing more solar power facilities to help reduce U.S. dependence on energy imports.A Roper Public Affairs poll conducted in May 2007 found that nearly 90 percent ofAmericans believe home builders should offer solar power as an option for all newhomes constructed. And 73 percent of those surveyed in another Roper survey in2006 said that solar energy technology is more important today than ever in re-sponding to America’s energy challenges.


21

In general, Americans would like to see the Federal Government take a more ac-tive role in promoting solar development. A February 2006 poll by the Pew ResearchCenter found that 82 percent of respondents favored increasing federal funding forresearch on wind, solar and hydrogen technology. A March 2006 ABC News/Time/Stanford University poll found that 87 percent favored tax breaks for companies toproduce more electricity from water, wind and solar. Note that these policies wouldrequire the use of taxpayer funds, unlike a check-off program.

Finally, polling surveys demonstrate that Americans are willing to pay more forsolar technologies under certain conditions. An April 2007 study by the New YorkTimes and CBS News found that 75 percent of Americans were willing to pay morefor solar electricity if it helped reduce global warming. Meanwhile, one-half of re-spondents in the May 2007 Roper survey said they would spend up to 10 percentmore for a solar-equipped house when told that solar homes have a proven higherresale value. A majority of respondents cited the financial and energy savings of asolar system as the main benefit of buying a solar system, indicating that con-sumers are assessing solar for its potential savings benefits and would support aprogram that drives down the cost of solar.Need for Improved Consumer Education About Solar

However, while 87 percent of respondents to the New York Times/CBS News pollsupported the use of solar to generate electricity, just three percent of respondentssaid that they used solar to generate heat, hot water, or electricity. That is actuallya far higher solar use percentage than amongst the American public at large, butit nevertheless illustrates the gap between broad public support for solar and its deminimis use today.

Though growing exponentially and constantly innovating, the U.S. solar industryis still in a nascent period. As mentioned above, solar PV provides less than 1/30thof one percent of the current U.S. electricity supply. Furthermore, PV is primarilya distributed generation technology that is installed on the rooftops of homes andbusinesses throughout the U.S.—a paradigm shift from the traditional model of cen-tralized electricity generation. Most solar installation companies are small busi-nesses, typically employing no more than a few dozen people, and lacking the budg-et to reach a broad swathe of consumers.

Thus, even as consumers embrace the idea of solar power, they are usually notfully aware of its capabilities and they have misconceptions about how a solar en-ergy system works in a home. Market reports demonstrate a lack of consumer un-derstanding that solar electricity operates just like regular electricity and is thesame kind of electricity that a local utility company provides. 29 percent of respond-ents to the May 2007 Roper survey were not aware that solar energy can powercommon electric devices like computers or appliances. A number of common mythspersist about modern solar technology, such as the belief that solar will not workin places outside of the Sunbelt or that solar devices require more energy to manu-facture than they produce in their lifetime, and these myths often inhibit consumerconsideration of solar as a viable energy source.

Furthermore, consumers lack information on how to find solar companies or whatsolar products might be available. On a daily basis, the most common phone callsto SEIA come from consumers who ask, ‘‘Where can I find solar for my home?’’ Theindustry has taken a number of steps to centralize this type of information, includ-ing the development of a national solar installer directory, Findsolar.com. Individ-ually, several companies have undertaken consumer awareness campaigns thatfocus on basic technology education. Yet these efforts clearly do not equate to thepotential reach of a national consumer awareness campaign.Benefits of a Solar Check-Off Program

A ‘‘Got Solar’’ program, based on a successful model used by other industries,would address the above concerns by creating an industry-funded national educationcampaign on the benefits of solar energy. Collectively, the industry would pool itsresources through an industry-wide program to fund this educational effort.

SEIA anticipates major benefits both to the consumer and to the industry withthe creation of a check-off program. Consumers would increasingly have the infor-mation they need to ‘‘go solar.’’ As the availability of market information increases,consumers would be better able to conduct due diligence on product and firm qualitybefore purchasing a system. Educated consumers could convince their businesses,local utilities, and public representatives to adopt solar energy and promote its use.And the program would also help to drive down the costs of solar to the consumerover time, creating a market demand signal that would help companies to rapidlyincrease production for the U.S. market and achieve economies of scale.


22

5 Examples of statutes establishing check-off programs include: National Oilheat Research Al-liance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6201; Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act, 7 U.S.C.§§ 7401; 7411–7425; Cotton Research and Promotion Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2102–2118; Potato Researchand Consumer Information Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2611–2627; Egg Research and Consumer InformationAct, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2718; Beef Research and Information Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2901–2911; Wheatand Wheat Foods Research and Nutrition Education Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 3401–3417; Floral Researchand Consumer Information Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 4301–4319; Dairy Production Stabilization Act, 7U.S.C. §§ 4501–4538; Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, 7 U.S.C.§§ 4601–4613; Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 4801–4819;Watermelon Research and Promotion Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 4901–4916; Pecan Promotion and ResearchAct, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6001–6013; Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, 7U.S.C. §§ 6101–6112; Lime Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, 7 U.S.C.§§ 6201–6212; Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6301–6311; Fluid Milk Promotion Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6401–6417; Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh CutGreens Promotion and Information Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6801–6814; Sheep Promotion, Research, andInformation Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7111; Canola and Rapeseed Research, Promotion, and Con-sumer Information Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 7441–7452; National Kiwifruit Research, Promotion, andConsumer Information Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 7461–7473; Popcorn Promotion, Research, and ConsumerInformation Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 7481–7491; Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and InformationAct, 7 U.S.C. §§ 7801–7813.

6 Dr. Ronald W. Ward, ‘‘Beef Demand and the Rate-of-Return to the U.S. Beef Checkoff,’’ Sep-tember 2004, http://www.beefboard.org/uDocs/wardstudy-2004.pdf; Agricultural MarketingService of the Department of Agriculture, http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpb/beef/beefchk.htm

7 Armbruster, Walter J., and John P. Nichols. Commodity Promotion Policy. 1995 Farm Bill

The solar industry would also reap the benefits of increased consumer educationand focused demand, which would translate into industry growth. A vibrant andwell-functioning market system would greatly help to make the domestic industrycompetitive in the global marketplace for solar energy technologies. The benefits ofincreased awareness of solar would accrue to a wide group of small-to mid-sized in-dustry players (installers, local integrators, equipment suppliers), many of whomwould not be able to afford this type of broad public outreach and education.Successful Precedents for a Solar Check-Off Program

The ‘‘Got Solar’’ program is based on a very successful model used in other indus-tries to increase consumer awareness of their product. Check-off programs havehelped fund the dairy industry’s ‘‘Got Milk’’ campaign, the American Egg Board’s‘‘Incredible Edible Egg,’’ the America’s Cotton Producers and Importers’ ‘‘Cotton, theFabric of Our Lives,’’ and the National Pork Board’s ‘‘Pork, the Other White Meat.’’In each case, a piece of legislation similar to the ‘‘Got Solar’’ program created aboard that collects a small assessment from each of the industry’s members.5 Thefunds are then directed toward education and public awareness campaigns.

Two examples of well-functioning check-off programs can be found in the oil heat-ing and beef industries. The oil heating industry pushed for passage of the NationalOilheat Research Alliance (NORA) Act of 2000, which assesses a charge of $.002 pergallon produced on members of the oil heating industry. The program has allowedan otherwise fragmented industry to pool its resources for advertising and also forcrucial research and development. NORA uses the funds to help development newoil heating technologies, bringing better products with higher efficiencies to the pub-lic.

In another well-known example, the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985charges cattle producers and importers $1 per head of cattle, with the assessmentsoverseen by the Beef Board and going to fund the National Cattlemen’s Beef Asso-ciation. The program brings in millions of dollars per year to fund public educationand advertising campaigns, including the popular ‘‘Beef, It’s What’s for Dinner’’campaign. This check-off program has been the backbone of the modern beef indus-try in the United States.

The beef industry’s check-off program has undergone close economic analysis sinceit was established. The most recent report, by Dr. Ron Ward of the University ofFlorida, studying the check-off program from 2000–2004, showed the program to bean exceptionally good method of growing an industry’s market. The study found thatfor every dollar invested in the check-off program, there was an industry return of$5.6

Need for Legislative AuthorityFor a solar check-off program to be effective, it must be established through the

legislative process. Historically, industries have organized voluntary check-offs, butthey account for only a small share of all funding for generic efforts. Hundreds ofmandatory farm commodity promotion programs have been legislated by states orthe Federal Government. Nine out of ten U.S. farmers were contributing to one ormore of these efforts by the mid-1990s.7


23

The adoption of a check-off program would ensure that all companies, both domes-tic and foreign, participate in a campaign to educate consumers on solar energytechnologies. Authority to collect assessments is facilitated by the government forthe practicalities of dealing in interstate commerce and the realities of enforcementto eliminate the problem of ‘‘free riders,’’ or nonpaying companies that might other-wise benefit economically from programs that others have funded.

The establishment of legislative authority would help ensure that a solar check-off program would succeed. Though it may be viewed as an industry-imposed ‘‘tax,’’it is a tax that is established by the industry, with the blessing of members of theindustry, and for the benefit of the industry. Thus, the industry would have thepower to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the program, with a focus on itseconomic benefits to industry members.Comments on the Solar ERA Proposal

SEIA requests a few key modifications to the proposed check-off program in theSolar ERA Act. First, current language would exclude SEIA from nominating itsmember companies to the Board of the new organization, and SEIA would not beable to have a representative participate on the Board. As the national trade asso-ciation representing the industry, SEIA would appropriately play a significant rolein a national industry consumer awareness and education campaign. Therefore, werequest that the criteria for eligible groups be modified to provide SEIA with theopportunity to nominate candidates and directly participate in Board activities.

Second, while we support a scheduled industry referendum on the continuationof the program, we believe that the current 22-month target date does not provideenough time for the creation of a new organizational infrastructure and the develop-ment, testing, and execution of a national campaign. We request that the targetdate be set no earlier than four years from the passage of legislation. Additionally,we believe that the current 10 percent threshold of companies needed to request fu-ture referenda is too low and could potentially derail the program from being effec-tive, and we propose that the threshold be raised to a minimum of 25 percent.Conclusion

A ‘‘Got Solar’’ program would be a sound investment in our country’s energy fu-ture. By providing a mechanism to increase consumer awareness about solar energyproducts, we can empower the American consumer to become part of the solutionto the energy challenges we face as a society. A check-off program would see moreof our energy purchasing dollars go towards an economically vibrant domestic man-ufacturing and installation base, and promote a carbon-smart, domestically pro-duced energy source from the most abundant source on the planet—the sun.

Thank you very much for your consideration of my testimony. I look forward toanswering any questions you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR RHONE RESCH

Rhone Resch is the President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA),the national trade association of the solar energy industry. In this capacity he isresponsible for managing all aspects of the trade association and ensuring their suc-cess in advancing solar energy in the U.S.

SEIA represents all solar technologies and serves as the voice of solar energy inthe United States and is responsible for all market analysis and lobbying on behalfof the solar industry with Congress and the Administration. SEIA’s recent successesinclude the creation of the residential and commercial tax credits in the 2005 En-ergy Policy Act and an expansion of the Department of Energy’s solar program budg-et from $84 million to $175 million. SEIA also orchestrates public campaigns work-ing with the media to help shape public support for solar energy.

Mr. Resch has over 15 years of experience in clean energy and energy efficiency,both in the private sector and the Federal Government. Prior to coming to SEIA,he was Senior Vice President of the Natural Gas Supply Association, a trade asso-ciation that represents both major and independent companies that produce andmarket natural gas.

In addition he has served as Program Manager at the EPA’s Climate ProtectionDivision in the Office of Air and Radiation, where he developed and implementedenergy efficiency programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hazardous airpollutants from the petroleum industry.

He also sits on the boards of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, theGlobal PV Solar Energy Council, and is Chairman of the Western Governors Asso-ciation Solar Energy Task Force.


24

He holds an MPA in Management from Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, aMaster of Environmental Engineering from SUNY Syracuse, and a B.A. from theUniversity of Michigan. He lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife Lisa and twochildren and has a six kW photovoltaic system on his home.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you.Ms. Weissman, please.

STATEMENT OF MS. JANE M. WEISSMAN, EXECUTIVE DIREC-TOR, INTERSTATE RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNCIL; VICECHAIR, NORTH AMERICAN BOARD OF CERTIFIED ENERGYPRACTITIONERS

Ms. WEISSMAN. Madam Chairman, Chairman Lampson, Mem-bers of the Committee and staff, I am very encouraged to be herethis morning and I really thank you for the opportunity.

This is a perfect time to be talking about training and buildinga confident and strong workforce for solar energy. Solar electric in-stallations grew by over 40 percent in 2006. If we meet the goalsof the photovoltaic industry roadmap, direct employment will in-crease from 20,000 now to 62,000 in 2015. By the U.S. Departmentof Energy’s own estimates, as many as 5,000 trained installers maybe needed to accomplish their new Solar America Initiative. Manyrecent and well-documented reports and research show continuedand robust investment and growth for the solar energy market, butas the market grows, so does the need for quality and accessibletraining opportunities for these new green collar jobs.

The good news is that the framework is in place to give us thetools we need to develop a strong workforce. NABCEP, the NorthAmerican Board of Certified Energy Practitioners, offers profes-sional credentials for renewable energy installers. Since 2003,NABCEP has certified 365 solar electric installers from 40 states.NABCEP certifications are based on strict psychometric guidelinesand credentialing principles. The process is rigorous for the appli-cant and requires documenting experience and passing a four-hourexam. NABCEP’s competency standard sends a clear message toconsumers and public officials that the industry stresses safe andethical business practices and high-quality workmanship stand-ards. The bar has been raised for professional services in the solarindustry.

While NABCEP certifies the installer, IREC, the Interstate Re-newable Energy Council, accredits the training programs and cer-tifies the instructors. Credentials are awarded using standards de-veloped by the Institute for Sustainable Power. These standardsensure legitimacy of what is being taught and by whom. A systemof review and audit provides a means to compare content, qualityand resources across a broad range of training.

We see promising trends for new practitioner programs. Commu-nity colleges, as my colleague, Joe Sarubbi, will talk about, andtechnical schools are offering renewable energy courses. Theserange from stand-alone courses, new energy certificates and asso-ciate degree programs. Classes are expanding from three- to five-day workshops to semester-long courses.

The Committee asked me three questions. Question number 1: Isthere a sufficient number of people trained? As market perform-ance continues to grow, the number of current training opportuni-


25

ties falls far short of meeting the demand for qualified workers. Weneed more classroom and hands-on training tailored to meet locallabor needs. Alliances need to be developed and advisory commit-tees established between training centers and local business. Thecurriculum needs to include real-world preparation with field andon-the-roof internships.

Question 2: Are such programs necessary or useful? The currenttraining programs are a start at providing a critical service thatsupports a strong and growing solar industry. However, their reachis limited and training opportunities need to be broadened. Wemust make sure that training programs are teaching students theright skills to do a good job, that the facilities include the rightequipment and hardware, that safe practices are utilized and thatteachers are qualified. While many states support workshops andtraining programs, New York provides a national model for us. In-staller training is a top priority for NYSERDA, the New York StateEnergy Research and Development Authority. To date, NYSERDAhas invested nearly $1 million to develop seven accredited solartraining centers across the state. NYSERDA’s program is one toemulate and replicate as it serves as a proven model for futuretraining programs.

Question 3: How can the quality of training programs be en-sured? Training needs to be based on industry standards so thatstudents are taught the right skills with the right equipment. Werecommend the following. Training should lead to defined work-place knowledge, skills and abilities. Training should addressissues of safety, codes and core competencies of an industry-ap-proved task or job analysis. Training should be in an environmentwith appropriate facilities, tools and safe practices. Training shouldoffer a formal and planned learning structure where the learner re-ceives some sort of feedback and their progress is monitored andtraining programs and learning objectives should be assessed andreceive independent approval or accreditation.

We have the foundation in place for training and developing astrong workforce. NABCEP’s third-party certification programs area means for consumers to identify qualified workers. NABCEP hasset industry standards high. Now we need to provide the trainingto meet these standards.

Madam Chair, I thank you for this opportunity. Members of theCommittee, thank you, and I would be happy to answer any ques-tions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weissman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANE M. WEISSMAN

Mr. Chairman, Representative Giffords, and Members of the Committee, thankyou for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss education and trainingprograms to facilitate the adoption of solar energy technology.

I am the Executive Director of the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, a nonprofit organization working with state agencies, communities and industry acrossthe country. Along with technical assistance, targeted outreach, promoting uniformguidelines and standards, and consumer protection, we focus on some of the currentand often difficult issues facing expanded renewable energy use such as connectingsmall-scale renewables to the utility grid and developing quality assessment pro-grams for renewable energy professionals, products and training programs. TheInterstate Renewable Energy Council offers third-party verification of training pro-grams and instructors using an application and audit assessment process based onstandards developed by the Institute for Sustainable Power which is used inter-


26

1 Our Solar Power Future. PV Energy Road Map. www.seia.org2 DOE Solar America Initiative (SAI) Funding Opportunity Announcement, October 11, 2006.

The goal of the SAI is to reduce the cost of solar photovoltaic technologies so that they becomecost-competitive by 2015.

3 March 7, 2007. RenewableEnergyAccess.com4 Clean Energy Trends 2007. Authors: Joel Makower, Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder, Clean

Edge.5 Trends in Practitioner Training for the Renewable Energy Trades. Weissman, J.M. and

Laflin, K. Proceedings American Solar Energy Society Conference, July 2006, Denver, CO.

nationally. This framework of standards and metrics verify that training programsand instructors have met predetermined and consistent criteria. The Interstate Re-newable Energy Council is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year.

I also serve as the Vice Chair of the North American Board of Certified EnergyPractitioners, NABCEP, a national, non profit corporation offering professional cre-dentials for renewable energy installers. NABCEP was started in 2002 with the firstcertification program for solar electric installers launched in 2003. To date, thereare 365 certified solar electric installers from 40 states. Both the photovoltaic andsolar thermal programs are based on strict, psychometric principles andcredentialing guidelines. It is a rigorous process requiring documentation of experi-ence and/or training and the passing of a four-hour exam. NABCEP’s competencystandards for certification sends a clear message to consumers and public officialsthat the Industry stresses high quality, safe and ethical business practices andworkmanship standards. The bar has been raised for professional services for thesolar industry.

This is a perfect time to be talking about training and building a competent andstrong workforce.

The solar industry reports that solar electric installations grew by over 20 percentin 2006. If the goals of the Photovoltaic Industry Road Map are met, total installedcapacity could increase to 9,600 MW by 2015. Direct employment would increasefrom 20,000 now to 62,000 by 2015.1

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that as many as 5,000 trained install-ers may be needed by 2015 to accomplish their new Solar America Initiative.2

A survey conducted by the investment bank Jefferies & Company in February2007 said that among renewable energy sources, solar power is viewed as likely tocontribute most to the world’s primary energy supplies by 2020.3

According to a report released in March 2007 by Clean Edge, global clean-energymarkets are ready to quadruple in the next decade, growing from $55.4 billion inrevenues in 2006 to more than $226.5 billion by 2016 for four technologies—biofuels,wind power, solar photovoltaics and the fuel cell and distributed hydrogen market.4

Add to these facts and market-based predictions rising retail electric grid prices,volatile pump prices, climate change, the increasing value of energy independence,and new and expanded state and federal policies. All of these influences are result-ing in new ‘‘green-collar’’ jobs.Training Trends

Over the years, the renewable energy industry has been fortunate to have a num-ber of training centers—the Florida Solar Energy Center, Solar Energy Inter-national, the Midwest Renewable Energy Association, the North Carolina Solar Cen-ter and the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association. These dedicated programshave provided us with experienced instructors and well-trained students. But as themarket grows, so does the need for quality and accessible training opportunities.

We are starting to see encouraging trends.5

• More and more Community Colleges and Technical Schools (high schools andprivate) are offering Renewable Energy Courses. These range from stand-alone courses, new energy certificates, associate degree programs, and cus-tomized training for business and industry.

• Classes are expanding from three- to five-day workshops to semester-longcourses.

• Students range anywhere from 18–45 years of age. They may be existing col-lege students in energy programs, other technology disciplines, existing tradespeople, those looking at changing careers or those who are currently workingin the industry and are upgrading their skills and knowledge.

• Some Community Colleges are incorporating renewable and alternative en-ergy technology into existing trade programs such as construction, electrical,Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning, and industrial maintenance tradesprograms.


27

6 Workforce Education for Renewable Energy: Lessons Learned from a National Gathering ofEducators. Weissman, J.M., Ferranti, A. and Laflin, K. Proceedings American Solar Energy Soci-ety Conference, July 2007, Cleveland, OH.

In Eugene, Oregon, Lane Community College Energy Management Program offersa degree and certificate program with a concentration for Renewable Energy Techni-cians.6

Cape Cod Community College Construction Technology program was recently relo-cated under the umbrella of the Environmental/Renewable Energy Program. All ofthe Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency courses will be electives for the Con-struction Tech program.

The curriculum at two technical high schools on Cape Cod in Massachusetts hasbeen developed so that renewable energy is integrated into existing shops and aca-demic areas with articulations at Cape Cod Community College.

In January 2006, Austin Community College and the Texas State Energy Con-servation Office advertised the offering of a 48-hour, 14-week course in solar elec-tricity. The class at Austin Community College sold out two weeks ahead of the offi-cial start date prompting Austin Community College to offer a second section forthe 2006 winter semester.

In November 2005, Hudson Valley Community College in Troy, New York openedits photovoltaic laboratory providing students hands-on experience installing photo-voltaic systems. The courses are included in the college’s Electrical Construction andMaintenance program curriculum.

Madison Area Technical College’s Consortium for Education in Renewable EnergyTechnology is a partnership among multiple institutions to share instructional re-sources and expertise. The curriculum is designed to supplement traditional degreeand apprenticeship programs and serve the needs of workers and employers.

The Renewable Energy Diploma Series at North Carolina State University isstructured so that intensive technology training covers not only the technical as-pects but also the policy and business parts of the industry.

Through internship programs, students are gaining in-field, on-the-roof installa-tion experiences in New York through the state and industry mentor/student pro-gram. The program is administered by the New York Solar Energy Industry Asso-ciation and supported by the New York State Energy Research and DevelopmentAuthority (NYSERDA).

And the National Joint Apprenticeship & Training Program, the training arm forthe IBEW, offers its members and local unions quality training in photovoltaics. Infact, they just published a text book on Photovoltaic Systems, which is an importantcontribution to training around the country.Question 1. Is there sufficient number of people trained and if not, is there

a sufficient number of training programs?If market past performance continues and current projections are realized, these

emerging training opportunities fall far short of expected demand for qualified work-ers. The Solar Energy Industries Association predicts that direct employment couldincrease from 20,000 now to 62,000 by 2015. The U.S. Department of Energy esti-mates that 5,000 trained installers could be needed to meet their goals. To date, wehave just 365 certified solar electric installers and 40 certified solar thermal install-ers. While there are more installers who have not become NABCEP-certified, andwhile some of them hold licenses providing evidence of competency, there is still agrowing demand for trained and qualified workers.

And, even though we are seeing more Community Colleges and other educationalproviders offer training programs and even with distance learning and web-basedinstructional opportunities, we need more classroom and hands-on training tailoredto meet local labor needs. We need to see alliances developed and advisory commit-tees established between training centers and local business and industry. Cur-riculum needs to include real-world preparation for solar installers with field andlaboratory experiences provided.Question 2. Are such programs necessary or useful for prospective solar

panel installers and consumers?The programs described above are providing a critical service to support a strong

and growing solar industry. However, their reach is limited and training opportuni-ties need to be broadened.

As part of the Solar America Initiative (SAI), the DOE Solar Energy TechnologiesProgram is analyzing the current situation to identify needs for the training andcertification of photovoltaic system designers and installers. A task force has beenconvened to study and report on these issues.


28

As training programs are offered by a variety of educational providers, how do po-tential students know that they will be taught the skills and knowledge they willneed to do a good job? Do the facilities include the right equipment and hardwarefor training? Are there procedures that ensure safety and safe practices? Are theprograms managed in a fiscally responsible way? Are the teachers qualified? Theseare some of the questions that come to mind as more courses are offered and enroll-ment increases.

While many states support workshops and training programs, New York providesa national model. Installer training is a top priority for the New York State EnergyResearch and Development Authority. NYSERDA is supporting the development ofan in-state network of training programs to provide accessible and quality instruc-tional opportunities for those already in the renewable energy trades or for thosewho are planning to enter the profession. To date, NYSERDA has invested nearly$1,000,000 in developing seven accredited solar training centers and continuing edu-cation programs across the state, partnering with SUNY Delhi, SUNY Farmingdale,the Ulster County Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES), Alfred Uni-versity, Hudson Valley Community College, the City University of New York andlocal Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committees/IBEW.

The NYSERDA program is one to emulate and replicate as it serves as a provenmodel for future training programs.Question 3. How can the quality of training programs be ensured?

Training needs to be based on industry standards so that students are taught theright skills with the right equipment.

The Interstate Renewable Energy Council, with input from industry and edu-cation subject matter experts, recommends the following guidelines for practitionertraining:

• Training should be designed to provide educational, training, and skill devel-opment experiences that lead to defined workplace knowledge, skills, andabilities.

• Training should appropriately addresses issues of safety, codes, and core com-petencies of an industry-approved task or job analysis.

• Training should be taught in an atmosphere with appropriate facilities, tools,safe practices as well as administrative and managerial quality.

• Training should offer a formal and planned learning structure where thelearner receives some sort of feedback and the learner’s progress is monitored.

• Training should be taught under the administration of a legally registered en-tity.

• Training programs and learning objectives should be assessed and receiveindependent approval or accreditation.

Closing RemarksThe foundation is in place for training and developing a strong workforce.

NABCEP’s third-party verification and certification programs result in a means forconsumers to identify qualified installers and encourage the development of a well-qualified workforce. NABCEP has set industry standards high. . .now we need toprovide the training to meet these standards.

Mr. Chairman, Representative Giffords and Members of the Committee, this con-cludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to take any questions.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JANE M. WEISSMAN

POSITIONS

• Executive Director, Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC).1994–Present

Responsible for all policy directions, operations, and management for thisnon-profit, membership organization. Developed the strategic route that re-sulted in national recognition of the Council for its education, procurement,and market-based programs. Collaborate with the U.S. Department of En-ergy, National Laboratories, state energy offices, other state and municipaloffices, community groups, industry, and national organizations to promotethe procurement and use of renewable energy resources. Developed exper-tise in quality assessment through the development of certification and ac-creditation programs.


29

• National Director, Photovoltaics for You Program. 1991–1994Directed this national commercialization initiative. Worked with utilities,regulators, government, consumer advocacy groups, and the photovoltaic in-dustry.

• Executive Director of the Massachusetts Photovoltaic Center of Ex-cellence. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1985–1991.

Directed this multi-million dollar solar electric high-tech, public/private ini-tiative. Responsible for all policy, marketing, operations, and program de-velopment.

EDUCATION

• Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program forSenior Executives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1989.

• Suffolk University, Business and Public Administration Graduate Courses,1974.

• B.A. Hood College, Frederick, Maryland. 1970.• ANSI Standards Training Course: Requirements of the ISO/IEC 17024• ANSI Standards Training Course: Standards Development Process

PUBLICATIONS

• Jane M. Weissman (IREC), Kirk Laflin (PETE). Trends in Practitioner Train-ing for the Renewable Energy Trades. Proceedings at the ASES Solar 2006Conference. July 2006.

• Jane M. Weissman (IREC). Defining the Workforce Development Framework& Labor Market Needs for the Renewable Energy Industries. Proceedings atthe ASES Solar 2004 Conference. July 2004.

• Ward Bower (SNL), Jane Weissman (IREC), Wendy Parker (ISP). Certifi-cation Programs for the Photovoltaic Industry—Status and Plans. February2003.

• Barbara Martin (FSEC), Jane M. Weissman (IREC), Mark Fitzgerald (ISP).A National Program for Certifying Solar Electric Practitioners. Proceedings atthe 8th International Symposium on Renewable Energy Education. August2002.

• Wendy Parker (ISP), Ward Bower (SNL), Jane Weissman (IREC). Costs andBenefits of Practitioner Certification or Licensure for the Solar Industry. Pro-ceedings of the IEEE 29th PV Specialist Conference, New Orleans, LA, May,2002.

AFFILIATIONS

• Board Member & Vice Chair, North American Board of Certified Energy Prac-titioners. 2001–Present

• Board Member, Solar Rating and Certification Corporation. 2005–Present.• Elected as a Fellow of the American Solar Energy Society. 2004.• Board Member & Secretary, Institute for Sustainable Power. 2004–Present.• Member, Solar Today Magazine Advisory Council. Present.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you.Mr. Sarubbi, please.

STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH T. SARUBBI, PROFESSOR/DE-PARTMENT CHAIR, BUILDING SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY DE-PARTMENT, HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Mr. SARUBBI. Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Com-mittee, it is certainly an honor and a pleasure for me to appear be-fore you today to discuss the value of training programs for the in-stallation and maintenance of photovoltaic systems. I truly believethe timing is right for our country to invest in renewable energytechnologies. We are witnessing a renaissance in thinking about


30

the way we generate and use energy in America and solar poweris a key component of this new mindset.

As we continue to embrace solar power, we need a well-trainingworkforce to be responsive to this fast-growing industry to ensuresuccess and our country has the educational infrastructure at thepost-secondary level capable of creating a skilled workforce in pho-tovoltaic installation and maintenance.

At the forefront of this training are community colleges. With theright resources, I have witnessed firsthand the ability of commu-nity colleges to quickly take action and develop credit and non-credit courses, certificate programs as well as associate’s degrees todevelop a skilled workforce in myriad occupations. Hudson ValleyCommunity College can certainly be viewed as a case study for de-veloping a successful solar energy training program. We havegained national and international recognition for our PV installersprograms and our training facilities. Our success was based onthree variables. First, a government agency such as the New YorkState Research and Development Authority, who provided thefunding stream through grant opportunities as well as tremendousguidance to help ensure success along with other organizationssuch as the Interstate Renewable Energy Council and the NorthAmerican Board of Certified Energy Practitioners, who are guidingus toward accreditation. The second variable is collaborating withthe local certified PV companies with the expertise to recommendthe best equipment for training, advice on curriculum and on-the-job training for our students, and third, well-trained faculty to de-liver high-quality education.

Now, we weren’t sure what was going to happen when we startedthis process but to steal the baseball analogy, build it and they willcome, certainly held true for our solar training programs. Once theword got out, interest came quickly and is growing fast in manyways. From PV companies expressing interest in hiring our stu-dents, from individuals interested in gaining the solar training,from homeowners seeking information about having solar systemsinstalled, and from other schools interested in learning from oursuccess, there has been tremendous synergy surrounding the devel-opment of our solar training program, so much so that Hudson Val-ley Community College hosted the first-ever national conference foreducators and trainers on renewable energy training and energy ef-ficiency workforce education, and that happened last Novemberwith educators and school administrators from other 30 states andsix countries. We had somebody come from Australia who was in-terested in seeing what we were doing. It was tremendously suc-cessful and we are hosting a second conference in March 2008, andI share that because great things have come out of us starting atraining program in the solar industry. Members of the communitynow have another career path. Solar companies are happy becausethey can expand their services as more and more homeownersclamor for solar power, all leading to job growth and economic de-velopment. Furthermore, our success has opened the door to de-velop wonderful partnerships with local solar installation compa-nies as well as large solar manufacturing companies such as SunPower, who uses our facilities for training, and they are a Cali-


31

fornia-based company and they come to Troy, New York, to utilizeour facilities.

In closing, I can’t emphasize enough the importance of solar—youknow, certified solar training programs in ensuring the continuedgrowth of the solar industry. It is a critical cog in the wheel of suc-cess. Without sound training programs, that wheel might keep roll-ing for a while but it will break down. I ask the Members of thisCommittee to please consider supporting this exciting bill andthank you for giving me the opportunity to present my thoughts onthis, and I will certainly entertain questions afterwards.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sarubbi follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. SARUBBI

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it’s an honor and a pleasure for meto appear before you today to discuss the value of training programs for the installa-tion and maintenance of photovoltaic systems.

The timing is right for our country to invest in renewable energy technologies anddevelop a workforce that will meet the demands of the ever-growing solar energyindustry. We are witnessing a renaissance in thinking about the way we generateand use energy in America and solar power is a key component of this new mindset.In fact, there is a real grassroots effort to increase the use of ‘‘green’’ energy tech-nology and its time for a national policy to keep this momentum. Moreover, ourcountry has the educational infrastructure at the post-secondary level to respond tothe challenges of creating a skilled workforce in photovoltaic (PV) installation. Whatwe need is a comprehensive national plan for training that will help spur furtherdevelopment and interest in solar energy.

At the forefront of training a workforce to meet the needs of this emerging indus-try are community colleges. While most four-year institutions gain notoriety for re-search and development, it’s community colleges that are, and will continue to be,responsive to national, state and local initiatives that drive the development oftraining programs. With the right resources, I’ve witnessed first-hand the ability ofcommunity colleges to quickly take action and develop credit and non-credit courses,certificate programs, and new associate’s degrees that act as a catalyst for economicgrowth by providing skilled workforces. For example, Hudson Valley CommunityCollege is a comprehensive institution that serves the greater Capital Region of up-state New York. With more than 70 degree and certificate programs and more than12,000 students, Hudson Valley Community College has positioned itself as a truepartner with businesses and government agencies in the region and across the state.The college has received national and international recognition for its world-classtechnologies programs, and its photovoltaic training program is no exception.

At the forefront of the college’s success with solar energy training, are the part-nerships forged with government agencies such as the New York State Researchand Development Authority (NYSERDA), which offers numerous grant opportunitiesin renewable energy technology training. In fact, NYSERDA’s funding program forthe development of photovoltaic installers was the catalyst and mechanism that al-lowed Hudson Valley Community College to invest in PV training. By reaching outto local PV Companies, Hudson Valley Community College was able to tap into ex-perts in the field who are Certified PV installers as recognized by the North Amer-ican Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP). With their help, as well asassistance from NYSERDA, Hudson Valley Community College was able to create,in a rather short period of time, a nationally recognized facility to train PV install-ers (see exhibits 1–3). The college developed credited PV courses to augment itsElectrical Construction and Maintenance Associate’s Degree program, as well as aState University of New York (SUNY) approved Photovoltaic Installers CertificateProgram. In addition, through the college’s Workforce Development Institute, nu-merous non-credit PV installer training programs have been developed and are of-fered on an on-going basis.Demand for Solar Energy Training

This collaborative effort between government, education and business has gen-erated significant interest and demand throughout New York State and the entirenortheast. The perfect analogy to this venture: ‘‘build it and they will come’’ couldnot be anymore true. The college was cautious in its approach to the number ofskilled PV workers it planned on training, not yet understanding the market de-mands. Today, it’s safe to say that the college underestimated the public interest


32

and PV company needs as the solar industry has witnessed exponential growth inthe number of installations of the past few years. For example, in 2003, NYSERDAreceived 80 applications for funding assistance of solar installations. By 2006 thatnumber grew to 286 applications, and 2007 is on pace to well exceed 400 applica-tions (source: NYSERDA). Other agencies such as Long Island Power Authority ob-served similar growth. Ever since Hudson Valley Community College began to show-case its photovoltaic program and corresponding facilities, interest has grown at thesame rate. I receive inquiries from individuals seeking to obtain photovoltaic skillsvia e-mail and phone on a regular basis. During the past year, five (5) companiesfrom throughout the region have inquired about the availability of PV students foremployment. One local certified photovoltaic installation company started its busi-ness in 2004 and had $80,000 in sales. In 2005 the company increased its sales rev-enue to $300,000 and by the end of 2006 it reached $1.2 million. This same companyhas a sales revenue projection for 2007 that will exceed $2.4 million. Another PVcompany stated that they need to hire three (3) installers for every $1 million in-crease in PV sales procured. Hudson Valley Community College is witnessing thisgrowth first hand and is positioning itself to meet the increase demand for install-ers.Students Finding Jobs in the Solar Industry

As I stated earlier, Hudson Valley Community College was originally unsure ofthe potential growth of the photovoltaic industry and decided to move cautiously to-wards training a workforce that exceeded demand. Our strategy was to supplementan already popular and successful Electrical Construction and Maintenance associ-ate’s degree program by introducing photovoltaic courses as an additional load tostudents’ schedules. The college limited the number of students who could enter the‘‘PV Program’’ to eight to 12 students a year. The college just completed its secondyear of training. Of the eighteen (18) students who completed the PV program four(4) chose to immediately enter the PV field while the others sought employmentwith the myriad opportunities in the electrical industry that each student is af-forded upon graduation, such as electricians, electronic technicians, electric lineworkers, electrical estimators, assistant project designers, etc. This spring, one par-ticular PV company alone sought to hire four installers and two designers, but theyinquired too late to capture a good portion of our electrical students who had thePV installation skills, as many already secured employment in other areas. The col-lege is starting its PV Installers Certificate program this fall and is currently ac-cepting applications of students for the one-year program. This certificate program,coupled with our Workforce Development Institute non-credit PV training programs,should help reduce the current shortage of trained PV installers.Involvement of Local Business and the State of New York in Building Cur-

riculumThe success of Hudson Valley Community College’s PV training programs and the

development of its photovoltaic laboratory wouldn’t be possible without the fundinginitiatives and guidance provided by NYSERDA, as well as the expertise offered bylocal PV companies. Both were instrumental and paramount to the advancement ofa first-class training program. In addition to the excellent laboratory facilities,which were funded through a NYSERDA grant, our partnership with a local PVcompany created the opportunity for students to work out in the field on actual resi-dential installations thereby augmenting their training skills (see exhibits 4 & 5).Such a relationship has helped ensure that our students enjoy high passage ratesfor the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners Photovoltaic EntryLevel Certificate of Knowledge. Furthermore, Hudson Valley Community College iscurrently working with the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) as it posi-tions itself to become a national accredited training institution as well as offeringaccredited training programs. The college expects to be accredited near the end ofthe year.

Yet it’s the local and state partnerships that allowed Hudson Valley CommunityCollege to be responsive to the needs of the community. Through NYSERDA’s net-working Hudson Valley was able to forge a solid partnership with California-basedSunPower Corporation. SunPower, seeking an East Coast presence for their growingbusiness, donated equipment for the faculty and students of the College to utilizein exchange for SunPower’s use of our photovoltaic laboratory at intermittent timesthroughout the year (see exhibits 6–8). This relationship gave our students greaterexposure to more types of photovoltaic equipment and practices. SunPower has en-joyed their relationship with the college and is currently seeking additional avenuesof training with Hudson Valley. Moreover, other types of training associated withphotovoltaic installations have emerged that is equally important to the success of


33

solar technologies. Local building inspector training as well as augmented trainingon electrical codes will ensure quality installations. When New York State, edu-cational institutions and businesses are all invested in developing beneficial trainingprograms such as photovoltaic installation, then the link between job growth andeconomic development becomes transparent.

Photovoltaic training programs, much like other technology training programs areexpensive by nature. Yet, if done right, the high academic quality of such programsbecomes apparent and is usually successful in fulfilling its mission. Community col-leges are the best fit to offer such training programs, but because of the shear na-ture of funding community colleges need financial assistance to develop first classtraining programs. Continued partnering with government agencies and businessesthat have a vested interest in such programs could help build a national programthat will facilitate the adoption of solar technology.


34


35


36


37


38


39


40

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOSEPH T. SARUBBI

Joseph T. Sarubbi of East Greenbush, NY, is a Professor and Department Chairof the Building Systems Technology department at Hudson Valley Community Col-lege. He is a seasoned educator with more than 35 years’ experience in educationand the electrical construction and maintenance industry, and has more than 20years’ experience developing customized training programs for firms such as Gen-eral Electric, Owens Corning, National Grid, and Georgia Pacific.

Through a strong partnership with the New York State Energy and Research De-velopment Authority, Mr. Sarubbi has emerged as a leader in New York State indeveloping credit and non-credit instructional programs in renewable energy tech-nology in the areas of photovoltaic installation and energy efficiency, and is cur-rently establishing training programs for the installation and maintenance of geo-thermal heat pumps, and wind energy systems. Under his leadership, in 2006, Hud-son Valley Community College hosted the first-ever Renewable Energy & Energy Ef-ficiency Workforce Education: A National Conference for Educators and Trainers. Itwas attended by individuals from 30 states and six countries. The college will playhost to the conference again in 2008.

Mr. Sarubbi has a Bachelor’s degree in vocational technical education from StateUniversity of New York Institute of Technology in Utica, NY and a Master’s degreein education administration and policy studies from University at Albany. He alsoearned his journeyman electrician certificate through the International Brotherhoodof Electrical Workers.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Sarubbi.Dr. Arvizu.


41

STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL E. ARVIZU, DIRECTOR, NATIONALRENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OFENERGYDr. ARVIZU. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Members

of the Committee, for this opportunity to discuss important issuesrelated to the Nation’s energy policies to meet our future energyneeds. I am the director of the National Renewable Energy Labora-tory in Golden, Colorado, and NREL, as we call it, is the U.S. De-partment of Energy’s primary laboratory for research and develop-ment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. I amhonored to be here to speak with you today. I might note, as I pref-ace my remarks, that I started in the solar business more than 30years ago as a young engineer working on solar power towers, con-centrating solar power at Sandia National Laboratories, and wehave come a long way in that time.

I applaud the Committee for its continuing examination of solarand other resources of renewable electricity and fuels. If we are toensure the Nation receives the full range of benefits from renew-able energy technologies, we need to carefully balance and blendnew technology, market acceptance and government policies. It isnot a question of whether to rely on the market, on the researchor on the government action. As we work together, we need to solveour energy problems by deploying all of these things simulta-neously. DOE’s Solar Energy Research Program supports the devel-opment and deployment of solar energy technologies and systemsthat can help meet our nation’s electricity needs and reduce stresson our electricity infrastructure. The solar program supports re-search at NREL as well as other institutions in photovoltaics, con-centrating solar power, solar heating and lighting. Through thePresident’s Solar America Initiative, the SAI, the Nation’s goal isto reduce the cost of solar photovoltaic technologies so they becomecost-competitive and effective with other sources of electricity in allmajor U.S. markets by the year 2015. Although the bulk of theU.S. national program is focused on photovoltaics, I will focus myremarks today, oral remarks, that is, on concentrating solar power,CSP, since that is really the topic of the discussion draft. It is pri-marily addressing where CSP fits into the overall portfolio.

Recent developments in the western U.S. illustrate the growingconcern over greenhouse gas emissions, consequently a market cli-mate is opening up that is furthering the encouragement to deployconcentrating solar power certainly in the U.S. Southwest. In theUnited States, nine CSP power plants totaling 354 megawatts havebeen operating reliably in California for the past 16 years andthere seems to be—we seem to be poised for some growth. Theseplants are especially interesting because with the addition of ther-mal storage, they are ideally suited to meet peak demands of en-ergy use in the Southwest. Until recently, however, this CSP tech-nology has been stagnant, and as with all new energy technologies,cost is the issue. CSP has had additional challenges in that thistechnology requires scale to achieve its ultimate cost-effectiveness.Couple the scale issue with high upfront capital costs and what youhave is a pretty high investment risk that really is difficult in thetraditional marketplace. In 2003, the solar program at the Depart-ment of Energy addressed cost by commissioning a detailed tech-


42

nical analysis of what this technology could produce, and it was re-viewed subsequently by the National Academies and I participatedon that panel. The cost of CSP at that point was concluded thateven though at that time it was around 12 to 14 cents a kilowatt-hour, that it could ultimately be down in the six to five cents a kil-owatt-hour, and we believe that today even though costs could beexceeded.

The discussion draft language on thermal energy storage ad-dresses an important issue related to the intermittent nature ofsolar energy and its impact on utilities and the potential for low-cost and efficient thermal storage is one of the key long-term at-tributes of large-scale CSP technologies. The ability of CSP tech-nologies to store energy presents an opportunity for DOE andNREL to establish an R&D effort that focuses on solar technologiesthat can produce baseload power at five cents a kilowatt-hour, andthese systems could include storage of up to 17 hours that wouldcompete for firm power from coal power plants, especially whenthey are outfitted with carbon sequestration technology. So it is ex-pected that an aggressive R&D program could achieve these costgoals by the year 2020.

The discussion draft also addresses transmission integration, andan important issue for CSP is that CSP is best when the sun ismost intense and you have cloudless days, as we do in the sunnySouthwest. So plants are often located in desert or semi-arid loca-tions where very few people live. Transmission lines are requiredto bring that power from remote locations to the urban load cen-ters. Throughout the West, access to transmission is generally lim-ited because many lines operate at or near capacity. While trans-mission is a problem, it is particularly difficult for solar becausesolar power plants need to be located where the solar resource isand they do not always have close access to existing transmissionlines. Additional transmission lines would allow solar energies fromthe Southwest to provide a very significant fraction of the overalltotal electricity needs of the country. So early market penetrationof CSP could be driven by long-term extension of 30 percent invest-ment tax credits for commercial solar technologies, but if the costof CSP power is too high when the tax credits expire, the marketwill be significantly impacted because there will be a downtown inthat technology. An objective of our program is to see that the De-partment of Energy’s CSP R&D activities would be to decrease thecost of the technology in a timely fashion so the market remainshealthy when tax credits might expire.

The Solar America Initiative of the Department has doubled theeffort to accelerate the deployment of photovoltaics in the market-place and earlier this year 12 technology pathway partnershipprojects were selected to receive up to $168 million over the nextthree years and the awardees contributing over 50 percent of thefunding. The new portfolio continues our historic investment inthin films and increases support significantly for concentratingphotovoltaics and silicon technologies.

In summary, to address our near-term needs in solar power, weneed a national strategy that promotes deployment of solar systemsand processes that are ready to serve us today. At the same time,to address our longer-term needs and achieve a truly significant


43

contribution from solar power technologies, we must make a newmajor commitment to the research required to deliver the next andsubsequent generations of concentrating solar power, photovoltaicsand other new technologies. We also need to invest in the infra-structure and in the workforce required to promote sustainablebusinesses and job creation. The good news is that the U.S. cantake back the global leadership that it once had in the solar energyfield. What is likely to be one of the most important new industriesof the century is solar energy through investing wisely now and inthe future. The timing is fortuitous because by most accounts, thenext big major market for global renewable energy use is here inthe United States.

I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.[The prepared statement of Dr. Arvizu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL E. ARVIZU

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss important issues relatedto the Nation’s energy policies to meet our energy demands for the future. I am thedirector of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado.NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy’s primary laboratory for research and de-velopment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. I am honored tobe here, and to speak with you today.

We applaud the Committee for its continuing examination of solar and othersources of renewable electricity and fuels. If we are to ensure the Nation receivesthe full range of benefits that renewable energy technologies can provide, we willneed a carefully balanced blend of new technology, market acceptance and govern-ment policies. It is not a question of whether to rely solely on the market, or onnew research, or on government action, as we work to solve our energy problems.To accelerate deployment of renewable energy technologies, we need to effectivelycombine all three.

It’s also crucial that this mix of technology, markets and policies be crafted sothat each works in conjunction with the others. The reality is that distinct renew-able energy technologies—be they solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, biomasspower, biofuels or geothermal—are in different places in terms of their economics,technological maturity and market acceptance. While a broad range of policies areneeded to spur on these varied technologies, the specifics of policies and incentivesto be enacted ideally must be tailored to fit the unique requirements of each of thesystems and devices we are seeking to deploy.

My testimony will address the Committee’s Solar Discussion Draft, share withyou related activities underway in the Solar Energy Program of the Department ofEnergy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and provide some spe-cific reactions to the draft from our laboratory’s perspective. I should note that onbehalf of DOE, the Administration has not had sufficient time to coordinate inter-agency views on the Discussion Draft, but the Department wants to provide somepreliminary comments.SOLAR POWER: CURRENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

AND POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE NATION’S ENERGYPORTFOLIO

DOE’s Solar Energy Program sponsors research, development, and deployment ofsolar energy technologies and systems that can help meet our nation’s electricityneeds and reduce stress on our electricity infrastructure. The Solar Program sup-ports research in photovoltaics (PV), concentrating solar power (CSP), and solarheating and lighting. Through the President’s Solar America Initiative (SAI), amajor effort within his Advanced Energy Initiative, the Solar Energy Program goalis to reduce the cost of solar photovoltaic technologies so that they become cost-com-petitive with other sources of electricity in all major U.S. markets by 2015.

The SAI is being implemented at a critical time in the evolution of the global solarmarket. Worldwide growth rates for photovoltaics have averaged well over 35 per-cent for the last five years, which means the amount of installed solar power dou-bles every four years or less. However, this rapid growth is from a very small base;PV still accounts for less than one percent of electricity generation worldwide. Pres-ently, several nations—including China, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, andTaiwan—are attempting to attain larger shares of the global photovoltaic market by


44

1 ‘‘AB 32 Assembly Bill,’’ California Legislature, Retrieved on September 31, 2006, from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab¥0001-0050/ab¥32¥bill¥20060831¥enrolled.html

2 Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, Feb. 26, 2007. Retrieved on April 3, 2007 fromhttp://www.climatechange.ca.gov/documents/2007-02-26¥WesternClimateAgreementFinal.pdf

3 ‘‘SDG&E Signs Solar Power and Other Renewables Energy Pacts,’’ San Diego Gas & ElectricPress Release, September 7, 2005.

4 ‘‘PG&E Announces Significant New Green Power,’’ PG&E Press Release, August 10, 2006.

making significant public investments to spur private industry. At the same time,technology improvements and State incentives are stimulating domestic demand forphotovoltaic systems in the U.S. The Solar America Initiative will provide the in-vestment needed to expand U.S. advantages in product design and manufacturing,assuring that American technologies play a leading role in the growing domestic andglobal markets for solar electricity.

The SAI provides a unique opportunity to focus our efforts on accelerating costreductions and manufacturing scale-up of the domestic photovoltaic industry to cap-italize on this opportunity. As we work to increase our energy independence and re-duce our impact on environmental resources, solar technologies offer an attractivecarbon-free, pollution-free energy resource.

In Fiscal Year 2007, President Bush requested $148 million for SAI—a 78 percentincrease over pre-initiative levels—and the significant Fiscal Year 2007 Congres-sional appropriation demonstrated that our nation’s leaders are in agreement thatdeveloping cost-competitive solar technologies is an important priority. The SAIR&D efforts supported by this funding are expected to expand domestic installed PVgenerating capacity up to 10 GW by 2015. Beyond enabling increases in manufac-turing capacity, these projects will help put U.S. industry on track to reduce the costof electricity produced by PV—from current levels of $0.18—$0.23 per kWh to$0.05—$0.10 per kWh by 2015—a price that is competitive in markets nationwide.STATUS OF CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER (CSP) MARKETS

Recent developments in the western United States illustrate the growing concernover greenhouse gas emissions, and consequently, a market climate that is open tofurther deployment of concentrating solar power (CSP) in that region of the country.

In September 2006, California enacted the California Global Warming SolutionsAct of 2006, which requires the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25percent by 2020.1 In March 2007, California and four other western states (Arizona,New Mexico, Oregon, Washington) announced the Western Regional Climate ActionInitiative2 in which they agreed to work together to cut their states’ greenhouse gasemissions. With the large solar resources available in the Southwest, CSP-generatedelectricity could play an important role in helping these states meet their emissionsreduction goals. In the longer-term, CSP-generated electricity could help all thestates reduce their greenhouse emissions.

Solar energy is the southwest’s most abundant renewable resource. In fact, Cali-fornia, Arizona, and New Mexico have enough combined solar energy to provide allthe power needed by the entire country. CSP technology is the least expensive solartechnology for providing large quantities of electrical power, and with sufficient stor-age, it can deliver baseload power. At a time when large quantities of carbon-freepower will be needed; CSP power plants, constructed primarily of concrete, glass,and steel, can be quickly constructed and brought on line. The yearly CO2 emissionsfrom a 1,000 MW coal plant are approximately 2,300,000 tons. The yearly CO2 emis-sions from a 1,000 MW CSP plant would be nearly zero (there may be some needfor grid power during the operation of the plant). With access to adequate trans-mission, CSP could even provide inexpensive carbon-free electricity beyond theSouthwest to other regions of the U.S.

In the U.S., nine CSP power plants totaling 354 MW have been operating reliablyin California for over 16 years, and CSP seems poised to grow significantly in thestate. Each of the three major California utilities (Southern California Edison, SanDiego Gas and Electric, and Pacific Gas and Electric) have signed power purchaseagreements for a CSP project or have indicated an intent of doing so. In August2005, Southern California Edison (SCE) signed a power purchase agreement for 500MW of CSP dish-engine systems on a 4,500 acre site near Victorville, CA, with anoption to expand the project to 850 MW. In September 2005, San Diego Gas & Elec-tric (SDG&E) signed a power purchase agreement for a 300 MW dish-engine projectin California’s Imperial Valley, with an option of expanding the project to 900 MW.3In August 2006, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company initiated plans with Luz II,LLC, to purchase at least 500 MW of solar energy beginning in the spring of 2010.4

The State of Nevada has put in place tax credits enabling the construction of a64 MW CSP project near Las Vegas that recently came on line. Nevada Power willpurchase the power from the plant. A one MW CSP system, completed in 2006, is


45

5 Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and PerformanceForecasts, Sargent & Lundy Consulting Group, SL–5641, May 2003.

operating in Arizona for Arizona Public Service. In addition, several other utilities,under the leadership of Arizona Public Service, are investigating the potential offorming a consortium that would buy power from a 250 MW CSP plant built in Ari-zona.

The southwestern states also have strong renewable portfolio standards (RPS)which require that a specific portion of a state’s electricity consumption be met byrenewable energy by a certain year. RPS’ are chief among the state policies thatpromote renewable energy, and some even specify that a certain amount of powermust come from solar energy.CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER TECHNOLOGY STATUS

As with all new energy technologies, cost is an issue. But CSP has an additionalchallenge: the technology requires scale to achieve its ultimate cost effectiveness.Couple the scale issue with high up-front capital costs and the investment risk istoo large for current market conditions.

The Solar Program addressed the cost issue by commissioning a detailed technicalanalysis of CSP by an independent engineering firm and then having the analysisreviewed by the National Research Council. Sargent and Lundy (S&L) was selectedto conduct this analysis on the basis, among other factors, of its independence fromthe CSP industry and its recognized performance in conducting due diligence stud-ies for the fossil power industry. S&L estimated that the cost of CSP technology canbe significantly reduced from 12–14 cents/kWh (as of 2003). Sargent & Lundey pre-dicts projects ultimate costs for CSP troughs at 6.2 cents/kWh and power towers at5.5 cents/kWh. Sandia and NREL (Sunlab) predict costs could be even lower.

Since the S&L report was completed in 2003, the experience gained from troughplants being built in the U.S. and Spain is enabling industry to lower their costthrough mass production and building larger plants. Since the S&L report was writ-ten, the price of steel, concrete, copper, and other commodity materials have risen.Although the numbers, as of 2007, are low, the figure continues to show the poten-tial for CSP cost reduction.

Because sunshine is most intense during the hot summer months when air condi-tioners are working the hardest, solar energy is a good match for a utility’s peakload. With 3–5 hrs. of storage, CSP is also a good match to a utility’s intermediateload. After gaining market penetration within the intermediate and peak load mar-kets, however, CSP could expand into baseload generation markets through the ex-panded use of thermal storage, thereby providing a renewable alternative to base-load coal power. CSP technologies convert solar energy into thermal energy whichis then stored in large tanks. This is an efficient way of keeping the energy untilit’s needed, at which time the hot fluid, often a molten salt mixture, is pumped toa power block where it is converted to electrical power through a turbine.The Role of Thermal Energy Storage and Transmission Integration

The Discussion Draft language on thermal energy storage addresses an importantissue related to the intermittent nature of solar energy and its impact on utilities.Adding thermal storage to concentrating solar power (CSP) plants enables solar en-ergy to be provided any time, day or night, that power is needed. Thermal storagealso has the potential for being low cost. An independent study by Sargent & Lundyconcluded that CSP costs could be reduced to between 4.3 and 6.2 cents/kWh by2020 for technology that utilizes thermal energy storage.5

The potential for low-cost and efficient thermal storage is one of the key long-termattributes of large-scale CSP technologies. Key advantages of thermal energy stor-age are:

• High Value Dispatch of Electricity: Without thermal energy storage, solarpower is an intermittent power resource, dependent on when the sunshine.Thermal energy storage allows the collection of solar energy to be separatedfrom the generation of electric power, providing the ability to dispatch genera-tion when the value for electricity is highest.

• Firming Delivery for Solar Power: The ability to store energy and dispatchsolar power when it is needed helps make solar power plants a more reliableor firm power resource for the utility. Firming of delivery is an important as-pect of supporting the economics of solar power plants through utility capac-ity payments.

• Increasing the Annual Capacity Factor: Solar power generating systems with-out thermal storage achieve capacity factors in the range of 25–30 percent.


46

With the addition of advanced, low-cost thermal energy storage, systems canbe economically sized to allow capacity factors of 75 percent or higher. As aresult, with the addition of thermal energy storage it is possible for solarpower plants to operate at or near baseload conditions.

The ability of CSP technologies to store energy presents an opportunity for DOEto establish an R&D effort that focuses on a solar technology that can produce base-load power at about five cents/kWh. Such systems would include 13–17 hrs. of ther-mal storage and would compete with the cost of power from coal plants using carbonsequestration technology. It is expected that an aggressive R&D program couldachieve the cost goal by 2020.

The Discussion Draft also addresses transmission integration, an important issuefor CSP plants. CSP works best where the sun is most intense and there are fewcloudy days, so plants are often located in desert or semi-arid locations where fewpeople live. Transmission lines are required to bring the power from these remotelocations to urban load centers. Throughout the West, access to transmission is gen-erally limited because many lines currently operate at or near capacity. While trans-mission is a problem for all new power generation, it is particularly difficult forsolar because solar power plants need to be located where the solar resource is bestand these are not always near existing transmission lines. Addition transmissionlines could allow solar energy from the Southwest to provide up to 6,800 GW of elec-tricity to the U.S.POTENTIAL R&D AND MARKET STRATEGY FOR CSP TECHNOLOGY

During the last three years, representatives of the DOE and NREL solar pro-grams have met with the energy and economic advisors to governors, energy regu-lators, state legislators, utilities, and other stakeholders in California, Nevada, Ari-zona, and New Mexico. These meetings were to provide the states the economic, en-vironmental, and energy benefits of CSP. Each state expressed an interest in CSP,although their interest was tempered by the high cost of the technology. They were,however, encouraged by the Program’s projections of significant cost reduction andalso showed interest in finding ways to encourage the deployment of CSP in theirstates. Nevada subsequently implemented tax incentives that have led to the con-struction of a 64 MW CSP plant outside of Las Vegas.

Utilities have demonstrated a serious interest in CSP for several reasons:• The widespread availability of solar energy throughout the Southwest pro-

vides utilities with flexibility in locating CSP plants near existing or plannedtransmission lines.

• Placing CSP plants on the ‘‘right’’ side of congestion can reduce grid conges-tion and increase grid reliability.

• CSP electricity production aligns closely with periods of peak electricity de-mand, reducing the need for investment in new generating plants and trans-mission system upgrades.

• Thermal storage or the hybridization of CSP systems with natural gas avoidsthe problems of solar intermittency and allows the plant to dispatch powerto the line when it is needed.

• Large centrally-located power plants are the types of systems that the utili-ties have operated for years and with which they are most comfortable.

• Once the CSP plant is built, its energy costs are fixed; this stands in contrastto fossil fueled plants that have experienced large fluctuations in fuel pricesduring the last several years.

• The economic studies performed by the states show that a relatively small up-front investment can result in downstream tax revenues for the State andlocal governments.

Utility representatives expressed particular interest in CSP because its ability tostore energy enables solar power to be dispatched to the grid through their entireperiod of peak demand, or whenever else it is needed. CSP was also attractive tothem because of its size (50–250MW), use of conventional steam turbine powerblocks, and the ability to hybridize CSP plants with natural gas.

Utilities have indicated that even with storage and the other advantages men-tioned above, it is hard for them to justify purchasing CSP power above 10 cents/kWh when they can buy less expensive wind power. In California, utilities can passalong the higher cost of renewable energy to their rate payers as long as it’s underabout 10 cent/kWh. Reaching 10 cent/kWh is thus important for early market pene-tration. The federal investment tax credit is important because it does much tobridge the cost gap. It is also important for the cost of CSP power to be at 5–7 cents/


47

kWh by 2015. So early market penetration of CSP could be driven by a long-termextension of the 30 percent investment tax credit for commercial solar technologies.But if the cost of CSP power is too high when the tax credit expires, the marketwill take a significant downturn or become completely stagnant. An objective of theDOE and NREL CSP R&D activities would be to decrease the cost of the technologyin a timely enough fashion so the market remains healthy when the tax credits ex-pire.

To achieve this objective, we must reduce CSP costs to provide intermediatepower at 5–7 cents/kWh with 4–6 hrs. of thermal storage. These activities wouldfocus on developing the solar collector, receiver, and other components of troughplants to attain the system goal.

To reach the long-term objective of providing baseload power, we will need to es-tablish feasibility, develop components, evaluate, and test new system concepts be-yond the trough plant design. The concepts likely to be examined include power tow-ers, distributed power towers, concentrating line focus receiver (linear Fresnel), anddishes w/storage. The criteria for developing these technologies will include a de-tailed analysis that defines the current state of the technology, the needed advance-ments in efficiency and cost of each component, the development and manufacturingpathways needed to achieve the goal, the time to achieve the advancements, andthe ability of the industry partner to commercialize the technology.THE PHOTOVOLTAICS R&D STRATEGY

Prior to January 2006, our research focused on technical progress through in-creasing the conversion efficiencies of solar cells and reducing the manufacturingcosts of photovoltaic modules. Our national laboratories—NREL and Sandia—imple-mented this R&D, which included providing relatively stable funding to companiesand universities, resulting in steady, incremental progress. Hundreds of individualprojects were funded at the national laboratories, universities, and companies thatgenerated continued interest in photovoltaics throughout the country.

But this picture changed after January 2006. We began with a change in programstrategy, along with a fresh look at the solar energy industry by the investmentcommunity, and supportive policies from numerous State and local programs. Thefocus of our research shifted from technical progress on components to integratedPV systems. Under the new strategy, companies funded by SAI are expected to de-velop products for priority markets, and industry is expected to influence the re-search agenda for the national laboratories and universities.

Dramatic progress is anticipated from multiple competitive solicitations, coupledwith an aggressive process to evaluate results and eliminate awardees showing lessthan substantial progress. The first set of large awards, called Technology PathwayPartnerships, will support multiple industry-led partnerships over the full value-chain, whereas smaller projects will target earlier-stage technologies. Public atten-tion will be attracted to these high-visibility projects, with the intent of stimulatingconsumer interest and eliminating barriers to PV deployment.

Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of this new strategy was DOE’s significantinvestment in a new funding opportunity for industry-led Technology Pathway Part-nerships. Entrance criteria for commercial applicants included prototype compo-nents, pilot production demonstration, and an established business case. At the endof three year projects, awardees were expected to have commercial PV systems andsubsystems with annual production of greater than 25 MW. These partnerships in-clude collaboration with national laboratories, universities, and suppliers to focus onthe development, testing, demonstration, validation, and interconnection of PV com-ponents, systems and manufacturing equipment. Through these efforts, the Partner-ships are expected to reduce the installed cost to consumers to $0.05–$0.10 per kWhby 2015—a price low enough to open up all major U.S. electricity markets.

Earlier this year, 12 Technology Pathway Partnership projects were selected to re-ceive up to $168 million in DOE funding over the next three years, with the award-ees contributing over 50 percent of the funding for these projects. Representing abroad cross-section of U.S. industry, the projects involve more than 50 companies,14 universities, three non-profits, and two national laboratories in 20 states. The se-lected projects’ leaders are Amonix, BP Solar, Boeing, Dow Chemical, General Elec-tric, Miasole, Nanosolar, SunPower, United Solar Ovonic, Konarka, GreenRay andSoliant. This new portfolio continues our historical investment in thin films and in-creases support significantly for concentrator photovoltaics and crystalline silicontechnologies. The portfolio is intended to deliver on the near-term potential in resi-dential markets and commercial markets, which are targeted by 32 percent and 48percent of the funding, respectively, with longer-term utility markets following at20 percent.


48

6 DOE’s Office of EERE uses two energy-economy models—NEMS–GPRA07 and MARKAL–GPRA07—to estimate the impacts of EERE programs on energy markets as part of its annualbenefits analysis. The NEMS–GPRA07 model is a modified version of NEMS, the midterm en-ergy model used by the EIA. The MARKAL–GPRA07 model is a modified version of MARKAL,a model developed by Brookhaven National Laboratory.

In addition to the Technology Pathway Partnerships, DOE will be releasing a va-riety of other funding opportunities to round out the PV R&D pipeline. These oppor-tunities will focus on developing new materials and processes for solar electric con-version, transitioning fundamental science studies into the fabrication of new PV de-vices, shortening the timeline for companies to transition pre-commercial PV moduletechnologies into full-scale manufacturing, supporting university materials scienceand process engineering research and improving inverters and power electronics indistributed PV systems.THE NREL PHOTOVOLTAICS R&D PROGRAM

The Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), now NREL, was originally createdto develop the technologies needed to foster a dynamic solar industry. Our Labora-tory has succeeded in large part at fulfilling this charter and has been vital to thedevelopment of the PV industry. In recent years, this industry has seen dynamicchange and significant growth—thanks to past R&D successes at NREL.

Importantly, this change has included the emergence of significant internal R&Dat start-up and established companies, as well as a proliferation of PV research atuniversity laboratories around the country. With the industry and academic ele-ments of the domestic PV R&D community changing significantly, in early 2007 webegan to reexamine our research strategy to ensure that it will be complementaryand relevant in years to come.

During spring of 2007, we began formulating a new multi-year research plan—with associated personnel and equipment plans—that recognizes this changing mar-ket context and is being developed with input from industry and academic collabo-rators. This planning process is intended to ensure the long-term vitality of NREL’sresearch and its mission to help foster and sustain a strong American industry.

The new plan resulting from this process will improve on the existing concept formanaging NREL’s PV R&D portfolio in several critical ways: (1) For a given tech-nology development ‘‘roadmap,’’ the plan will more explicitly link the parameterstargeted for device performance or process development to the market impact theywould make if commercialized (e.g., in terms of change to commercial module costs,manufacturing equipment capital cost, or manufacturing bills of materials); (2) Itwill specifically identify the conditions and parameters under which a given devicetechnology or process will be sufficiently proven to be transferred via licensing orother means for commercialization; (3) It will exhibit changing priorities over time,as research tasks in various areas are planned to be completed and as new tech-nologies emerge for further development; and (4) The plan will explicitly identify re-search tasks that will be performed in industry, academia, or other institutions thatare relevant to the activities and outcomes of NREL research activities.

We are extremely excited about our progress thus far under the new strategicplanning process. And we look forward to sharing the resulting R&D priorities andmanagement procedures in October 2007, at the start of our next fiscal year.PHOTOVOLTAICS PROGRAM OUTCOMES AND BENEFITS

Upon realizing the SAI goal, it is expected that roughly two million metric tonsper year of carbon emissions will be avoided by 2015 and PV will provide approxi-mately five GW of electricity generating capacity—displacing roughly the equivalentof five coal-fired power plants—enough to energy to power about 1.25 million house-holds. This is equivalent to 10 times the amount of PV installed today.6

Distributed solar technologies will enable our ultimate goal of affordable zero en-ergy homes and buildings which fulfills the President’s Advanced Energy Initiativevision of changing the way we power our homes and businesses. Net-zero energyhomes and buildings produce as much energy as they consume through improvedefficiency combined with renewable energy, such as solar, providing needed powerand offsetting any utility-provided energy over the course of a year. Optimizing thebalance of energy efficiency improvements and solar PV will result in the most costeffective net zero energy home or building and connecting the solar PV system tothe grid can allow customers to sell the excess solar energy back to the utility.

Highly efficient buildings with distributed technologies reduce peak demand, andwill ease the need for expensive new generating capacity, transmission and distribu-tion lines as our economy grows. Building-integrated PV can make the buildings sec-tor a source of energy diversity and low carbon electricity (the building sector cur-


49

rently accounts for 39 percent of U.S. energy use). Total energy use in the buildingssector is projected to increase an additional 30 percent through 2025, and we believethat solar PV can meet much of this demand.

As the Committee’s Discussion Draft notes, educating energy consumers is criticalto achieving the market goals I have previously indicated. One of the ways we edu-cate Americans about the new choices they have in heating, cooling and poweringtheir buildings is a unique project that encourages the development of zero energyhomes called the Solar Decathlon. The Decathlon, sponsored by DOE, challengesschools of architecture and engineering to design solar powered, zero-carbon, self-sustaining houses from the ground up to see which house is the most aestheticallypleasing and which house performs the best. Twenty collegiate teams from theUnited States, Canada, Puerto Rico, Spain, and Germany will participate in thisyear’s competition, which will be held on the National Mall from October 12–20,2007. The public is invited to visit the solar village and tour the houses, whichshowcase the latest green building and energy efficient technologies.BUILDING ON MOMENTUM: STRATEGY & PRIORITIES FOR 2007

During the first 18 months of the Solar America Initiative, DOE and NREL haveworked together to implement a broad-reaching change in strategy with one clearpurpose: to make PV technologies cost-competitive in all major domestic grid-tiedmarkets by 2015. We emphasize that this change was not implemented simply forthe sake of change. But rather, to take advantage of progress in module efficiencyand fabrication principally achieved by industry, universities, and the national lab-oratories over the years. These successes form the foundation for the PV systemsthat we will be supporting in the future.

Priorities in 2007 include continuing to implement the funding opportunities de-scribed above. We will also establish the framework for additional university in-volvement in the Technology Pathway Partnerships and calibrate our Laboratory’sresearch portfolio and future role. And finally, we will ramp-up our efforts in testingand evaluation of new product designs—an activity that is critical to assuring thereliability of the new products we are developing with industry.SUMMARY: BALANCING SHORT- AND LONG-TERM R&D INVESTMENTS

IN SOLAR POWERTo address our near-term needs in solar power we need a national strategy that

promotes the deployment of solar systems and processes that are ready to serve ustoday. At the same time, to address our longer-term needs and achieve a significantcontribution from solar power technologies, we must make a major new commitmentto the research required to deliver the next, and subsequent, generations of CSP,PV and other new technologies.

The good news is that the United States can take back the global leadership itonce had in the solar energy field—what is likely to be one of the most importantnew industries of this century—through investing wisely now and into the future.The timing is fortuitous, because by most accounts the next big market for globalrenewable energy in here in the United States.

Thank you.

DISCUSSION

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you so much all of you for your opening re-marks. We have a good amount of Members here so I want to getgoing pretty quickly. Let us try to limit questions and answers tofive minutes and see how far we get.

SOLAR ENERGY IN GERMANY

I would like to kick off with some of the comments Mr. Reschmade in terms of what we can be doing as a country in comparisonto Germany. What happened in Germany, and for the panel, youknow, what can we learn from them, what are the take-aways,what are some of the mistakes and the pitfalls?

Mr. RESCH. Thank you, Congresswoman. What Germany did firstand foremost was to make a long-term investment in solar energyand they did it during the worst economic downtown since World


50

War II. So what they basically said is, we need to diversify our en-ergy portfolio, we are becoming increasingly dependent upon nat-ural gas coming from Russia, and they felt it was very importantto look at what natural resources they did have in place, and thatis certainly solar, although their resources are lower than ours wasone of those resources, and they looked at all renewables includingwind and geothermal and biomass. They created a structure whichis a 20-year incentive structure to encourage the use of renewables.It is called a feed-in tariff, or the EEG is the acronym in Germany,and what it does is provide again a fixed incentive over a long pe-riod of time. It doesn’t really translate, if you will, to the UnitedStates because our electricity laws are very different but the mostimportant thing that they did was to give a long-term incentivestructure. Now, what has happened is, manufacturing has ex-panded rapidly in Germany and they have created almost 40,000new jobs in Germany in the last five years because of the EEG.These are manufacturing jobs in eastern Germany, a lot of installa-tion jobs. You are seeing solar go up on barns, on homes, on fac-tories, really all over the country, and they have gone from beinga country that ignored, if you will, solar to being the global leader.They install eight times as much PV as we do each year. They in-stall about 80,000 solar water heating systems each year. In theUnited States, we install about 6,000 solar water heating systems.And because of that, they have really created an economic forceand growth in Germany that frankly hasn’t been seen since thehigh tech, frankly the chip industry is a classic example, the U.S.technology invented in the United States being commercialized bythe Germans and the Japanese and increasingly the Chinese. Sowhat they have done is provide a long-term incentive and structurefor encouraging people to use solar.

SOLAR CHECK-OFF PROGRAM

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. How would the proposed solar re-search and promotion program or the check-off program enable in-dustry to promote the use of solar power in a way that it currentlycannot, and why is the involvement of the Department of Energyfor this program so useful?

Mr. RESCH. The check-off program really does several things.First and perhaps most important is, it allows all of the industryto collectively pool its resources together. So when you look at allof the individual companies that are out there, they just don’t havethe budgets, if you will, to do a national campaign on their own oreven a branding or marketing campaign but the beautiful thingabout a check-off program, it is a very, very small surcharge thatthen collectively and certainly over time creates a pool of moneythat then can be used for education and outreach. The second isreally the public perception on solar. When you do the polling andyou ask people what do they think of solar, they want to see moresolar, they want to use more solar. My gosh, you know, you inven-tory—you ask anybody in this audience behind me, I guaranteehalf the people would say—or more would say I want to put solaron my house at some point in the future. But they need to figureout how to do that. We need to have a mechanism that allows con-sumers to learn more about solar, to learn that this is what solar


51

looks like. It is a beautiful thing. It is elegant technology, youknow, that it has incredible environmental benefits, that althoughthe costs may be high up front in the long run, it does pay for itselfover time and can be a good hedge against let us just say higherenergy prices. So that type of mechanism needs to be pulled to-gether, and what we have found is that programs like ‘‘Got Milk’’and the pork program and the cattlemen’s programs have worked.They have worked effectively for agriculture and industries thatagain are diverse, that have, you know, literally thousands of smallfarmers or that have hundreds of major, you know, agriculturalproviders but that collectively when they pool their resources canget something done. I think the Department of Energy becomes acritical entity because it allows, let us just say the governmentinput and coordination on research and public perception and sowhat we would want to make sure is anything that we are doingwith this program is operating in a very consistent manner withthe Solar America Initiative and research and development pro-grams that are going on in the DOE, in large part to make surethat there is no duplication and that the federal resources are usedas effectively as possible but also to get the insight from the re-searchers around the country into this program.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you.The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Hall. Thank you for

being here.Mr. HALL. Thank you, ma’am. Thank you very much, and thanks

for a good panel here, and Rhone, good to see you again. You aretoo young, but——

Mr. RESCH. That is changing quickly, sir.Mr. HALL.—I think you are going to be a fast learner, and I like

your natural-gas background.

COMPARISON OF SOLAR ENERGY TO ANWR

Mr. Hayden, in your testimony you have advocated a study onlocating large-scale concentrated solar power on federal land, andyou said a single 250-megawatt facility would occupy 1,250 to 2,500contiguous acres of land. With the hard, cold facts being that theproposed drilling areas for ANWR is 2,000 acres, I believe that isthe correct figure, with the potential for recovering over 10 billionbarrels of oil, a possible 50 percent increase in total U.S. provenreserves creating roughly one million jobs here in the UnitedStates, my question is, can a solar installation produce this muchof a return on the same amount of land or more?

Mr. HAYDEN. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.Mr. HALL. Did you write the question? You didn’t send me the

question, did you? I really want a good answer.Mr. HAYDEN. You asked the question in terms of I think produc-

tivity of the land is, and obviously we all understand that that isa very complex topic to look at productivity of land use and so Ithink there would be a very imperfect comparison between anANWR drilling site and a solar site. In fact, if we look at what thechallenges are to making solar actually competitive, you know, juston shear costs, we are challenged in the sense that nature has puttogether the fossil fuel resources into highly dense form and ex-tracting it with, you know, resource extraction may not have a


52

large footprint but the counterbalance, the land use of the solardoes not deplete the resource. It is working in real time to harvestsunlight. Secondly, there is a ripple effect where the technology isadvanced into bringing the solar into play. So I would agree withyou that if you look at the footprint alone as one metric competingagainst fossil fuel in a highly dense form is very challenging forany renewable but if you look at how fossil fuel over its entire lifecycle of being replaced could compete with solar, then solar nowhas an advantage because the technology is very efficient in termsof, say, nominally 25 percent conversion of sunlight into energywhere fossil fuel has a much lower efficiency on its entire basis. Soall these things are of course arguable in how you look at it butthe solar technology does have the opportunity to deliver foreverand——

Mr. HALL. They could exist and be compatible together?Mr. HAYDEN. I think that is a very important point. We have

seen in my work of trying to combine mining uses, for example,where they have buffer zone and land with productive uses of solar.

Mr. HALL. With us being so totally dependent upon people thatreally don’t trust us and we don’t trust, sitting here with a fearthat China will offer them a buck a barrel more than we are pay-ing them, do you like the comparison when they say don’t disturblittle ANWR, the pristine little area of ANWR when it is 19 millionacres and we are using 2,000. Did you hear the comparison thatit would be like putting a postage stamp at the end of a tenniscourt and saying that ruined the whole tennis court? The good com-bination of the two with solar would be the same. It doesn’t hurtthe land at all.

Mr. HAYDEN. Well, I am not sure that Alaska would be a greatplace for the solar equipment. It would generate pretty good duringhalf the year and not so good during the other half of the year, butI think there is a lot of opportunity for hybrid composite uses ofland.

MORE ON SOLAR CHECK-OFF PROGRAM

Mr. HALL. But you make another point there. If it is dark halfthe year, what are they hiding up there anyway?

I have one other question of Dr. Arvizu on the neutrality of theDepartment of Energy on check-offs. Are there any other check-offprograms at DOE? Should there be a generic renewable check-offprogram? Is that a good use of DOE’s resources? I will just give youthe full barrel.

Dr. ARVIZU. Thank you. Actually there are merits to what I be-lieve are intended in terms of the value that check-off programsbring. I think the rationale at the Department of Energy is whatis the role of the Department and how should it endorse or other-wise encourage what we think are very appropriate education pro-grams, and I think Mr. Resch actually articulated very nicely thebenefits and the value that educating the public has in terms ofpromoting the use of renewable energy. The question is still I thinkan open one inside the Department as to whether or not the De-partment has, you know, a role that couldn’t be satisfied by per-haps closer coordination with the private sector. One of the thingswe are trying to do at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory


53

is connect very closely with the industry and with the private sec-tor to make sure that our goals and objectives are aligned andthese public-private partnerships provide as much benefit both tothe taxpayer as well as to the private sector. In the end, this isabout making investments. This is about having return on those in-vestments, putting market signals where the value is extracted,and we have got a lot of work to do in those particular areas. Sothe check-off program, although it is important, isn’t the highestpriority that we are working on but we see the merit and the valueof it and open for discussion as to——

Mr. HALL. My time is up. If I had more time, I would ask youif being open, you mean they are going to remain neutral on check-off, and question, why shouldn’t DOE be focused on research? AndI may write you a letter and ask you those things.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and let me also note that

in this draft legislation, no money would come directly from DOEfrom the check-off. It would all come from the private sector.

The Chair recognizes Mr. McNerney.Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mrs. Chairwoman, and I just want

to say that I am very excited about the future of solar and I ap-plaud you for the bill. It is a nicely crafted bill.

MANUFACTURING COST FOR SOLAR ENERGY

You know, the real limitation for solar. You have talked abouteducation. Education is a limiting factor but the real limitation isthe price. I come from the wind industry and what happens in thatindustry is that as we get on the manufacturing curve, the costgoes down just out of production volume, but I am not convincedthat is the case with solar, especially with photovoltaic. So myquestion I guess for Dr. Arvizu is, do you see the technology in pho-tovoltaic and in CSP leading to lower cost with increasing volumeor again is some type of technical limitation going to prevent thecost from coming down, and if not, could you kind of go into thata little bit for me?

Dr. ARVIZU. Yeah, sure, and I know that Mr. Resch has some-thing else to say as well. I would offer that the incentive programsthat have been put in place both in Germany and in Japan havedemonstrated very clearly that with these policy measures and in-centives and encouraging a market which now has exponentialgrowth does in fact reduce the cost, and what we are seeing is thatthe costs are coming down, things like balance assistance cost in-verters and installation costs and things that relate to siting andinstallation are all in fact now a much smaller fraction of the over-all system cost than they used to be. So it does inform our researchprograms because I think there is plenty of space and opportunityto reduce costs both on what I call the business end of the tech-nology which has to do with the conversion process from solar toelectricity, and whether that is at the cell level for crystalline sil-icon technology or at the module level when it is thin-film tech-nology, we see tremendous progress being made there, and it is amatter of a lot more volume, a lot of learning curves. Clearly first-generation technology is on an S curve, if you are familiar withhow technology finds its way into the marketplace, and you prob-


54

ably need to jump onto second-generation technology, which is adifferent S curve with different learning curves.

Mr. MCNERNEY. We are past second-generation technology withsolar photovoltaic now, aren’t we?

Dr. ARVIZU. Well, not in the parlance that we use. You know,first-generation technology is the technology I started with in the1980s and it is the staple. I sponsored this research literally in1985 with Dick Swanson at Stanford University. It is now commer-cial product. Technology that we are working on in the laboratorynow is what we call second generation—thin films, concentrating,a variety of high-efficiency technologies. There is yet a third gen-eration. That is the organic, really high efficiency, I call it revolu-tionary. It is maybe a few years down the road but we are rightnow trying to get second generation into the marketplace. So thereis a lot of room to be had and I think what you will find is maybethese companies are investing in second-generation technologytoday.

Mr. RESCH. And Congressman, if I could just add a couple ofpoints in response. We have seen historically the price of solarcome down so when the incentives for solar were dropped in 1983,the market continued. I mean, it dropped but, you know, we contin-ued to use solar energy, and since 1983 we have seen the price ofphotovoltaics come down by 90 percent. The learning curve that wehave seen is for every doubling of manufacturing capacity, we seeabout a 20 percent reduction in the price of photovoltaics. So whatis really needed is a long-term stable driver for the market so thatif I am a manufacturer, I am going to scale up my production. Imean, most of the manufacturing facilities are 20-, 30-, 40-mega-watt plants. That is pretty small. We need gigawatts-scale plants,and the only way you are going to get that is by providing a longenough incentive so that you can make sure your investment inthat plant is actually returned. And the example I use for wind, Ithink we are probably a decade behind wind. Wind has had theproduction tax credit, granted on and off, but they have had theproduction tax credit for 14 years. Solar has had the investmenttax credit for about 17 months. So, you know, the market is reallyjust starting in the United States with respect to any kind of mar-ket incentives coming from the Federal Government, so we arehopeful we will see a long-term incentive that will spur manufac-turing, then drive down costs.

TAX INCENTIVES FOR SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. MCNERNEY. And, you know, in wind, the tax credits had abig impact. The initial tax credits were investment tax credits andthey caused a lot of substandard equipment to be put in the fieldand it kind of hurt the industry’s reputation for years and years.What sort of tax incentive do you think would be the most effectivefor solar then, given that history?

Mr. RESCH. Because solar tends to be distributed generation andhaving a very high upfront cost, we found that the investment taxcredit works best. At the end of the day, the investment tax creditisn’t large enough for you to put in expensive non-operating equip-ment. Everything is UL listed. Everything comes with, you know,certification. Everything has to be grid connected, and with the in-


55

vestment tax credit, it still has to pay for itself in a reasonable pe-riod of time. So we are seeing the commercial segment of the mar-ketplace, so think of Lowe’s, think of Home Depot, Fresh Fieldstores putting solar up on their roofs where you have got an energymanager and you have got an account watching to make sure thesystem performs, very sophisticated equipment that is performing,so the ITC works best for us.

Mr. MCNERNEY. I mean, basically what you have just said is thatthe investment tax credit is probably more effective than produc-tion tax credits for solar?

Mr. RESCH. That is correct. The production tax credit is—the bot-tom line is yes, the ITC works better than the PTC.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thanks for your honesty there. I am out of time.Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Inglis.

TAX INCENTIVES AND NET METERING OF SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. INGLIS. Following up on Mr. McNerney’s questions, whatshould be more effective, some kind of tax credit or a net meteringkind of proposal?

Mr. RESCH. You really need both. Net metering allows the sys-tem to work effectively, so just to give you an example, on a daylike today, even though I am using air conditioning at my house,I am generating excess electricity. If Jane was living next door tome, it would be going into her house and it would be going intoHal’s house as well, and what that does is, it really stabilizes thegrid. It allows utilities, if you will, although they are still going tobuy peak demand, to have less congestion, less constraint on thedistribution grid.

Mr. INGLIS. It also makes it much more attractive for me to putinto a system, right, because——

Mr. RESCH. Then you wouldn’t have to buy a battery backup sys-tem that would store, so it actually is a lower cost. You almost usethe grid, if you will, as your battery or as your reserve.

Mr. INGLIS. Right, and I would also have the capacity to recoupsome of my investment. I mean, we have to figure out a way to payfor this thing, putting it on my roof, and so a tax credit is one pos-sibility. Another possibility is net metering.

Mr. RESCH. Net metering, it differs by every state. Right now wedon’t have net metering laws so what exists in Maryland is verydifferent from what we have in Virginia, which is very differentfrom what we have in D.C. And so it is very difficult from a busi-ness model to determine which one is the right one. If we had uni-form net metering, that would make a very big difference, and ifyou had time-of-use rates, which means that you are paying for theprice of—the real cost of the electricity on a day like today, I guar-antee Pepco as they are pulling in new demand isn’t paying eightcents per kilowatt-hour. They are probably paying 20 cents a kilo-watt-hour.


Mr. INGLIS. Something tells me that our friends at Energy andCommerce would say they have jurisdiction over that, that net me-tering thing, but it is fun to dream about such topics. Anyhow, so


56

how about—speaking of jurisdiction, is this a voluntary check-off ora mandatory check-off?

Mr. RESCH. It is a mandatory check-off program that companiesthen have the option of opting out and so it becomes voluntaryafter it is created.

Mr. INGLIS. And how does that work?Mr. RESCH. You would pay into it and then you have the oppor-

tunity to request a refund. So what this—the way the structureworks, and this is a very important part, especially as the U.S.market continues to develop is, we are importing—we may be im-porting more and more panels from China to avoid a free ridershipuse structure of the program so that everybody pays into it ini-tially. If they decide they don’t want to support the program forwhatever reason, then they can opt out and get a reimbursementfor the money that they paid in.

Mr. INGLIS. So what free rider would not go to that extra stepof asking for a refund? Just a lazy free rider that doesn’t realizetheir opportunity or——

Mr. RESCH. It forces them to get involved. It forces them to seethe merits of a program. It forces them to either sit on the boardor at least engage with the board as to what the program is allabout and at least they understand it so they are making a con-scious decision as opposed to an ignorant, I don’t want to get in-volved decision, and there is probably peer pressure that wouldkeep people to participate. I am sure that exists in agriculture too.

Mr. INGLIS. I ask this question—does anybody know, is this a se-quential referral or something or—to Energy and Commerce. Do wehave jurisdiction over it? I don’t know. It is an interesting questionif we would have jurisdiction over such a mandatory check-off.

I yield to the Chair.Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Inglis, when we put this legislation together,

we were obviously looking at jurisdiction. Because we had a panelthat was qualified, we thought it was important to come and havea discussion about this because this is one of the main parts ofwhat would be so helpful for the industry. That is why we are stillworking on that.

STORAGE AND EFFICIENCY OF SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. INGLIS. And a question for the panel is, which is more crucialto it? Is it a storage question or the efficiency question—efficiencyof conversion? As I understand it, the solar cells—I wish I knewhow to explain it. Roscoe will explain it to us next. He has got thenext question, to explain this conversion issue and the efficiency ofit. I don’t know how to express it. But we are talking a lot aboutstorage here and we are not talking much about the efficiency ofthe conversion.

Mr. ARVIZU. Let me take a stab at that. I think it really comesdown to the economics. It really comes down to how many cents perkilowatt-hour am I paying life cycle for the power. When you addstorage to concentrating solar power, you improve or increase thevalue by a tremendous amount because, as Rhone talked about ear-lier, you are putting—you are allowing there to be essentiallypower generation at a time when you may in fact have peak poweruse, which there is a higher value on that certainly to the utility.


57

I know that in Spain there is a feed-in tariff as well and they puta big premium on having storage, in other words, being able togenerate electricity even past the normal sunlight hours, and byputting in the generation, the developers actually get an 18—I amsorry—an 80 percent additional return on investment by putting inthe storage, so that is just in economic terms. The efficiency is im-portant. Typically the cost is important so it is the efficiency anda cost tradeoff so sometimes you have high efficiency, high cost,sometimes you have low efficiency, low cost. Sometimes those areequivalent, and if there is a tradeoff, I think you need to go backto how many cents per kilowatt-hour life cycle, you know, all in,all out kind of a metric to determine which one has the mostattractiveness to it.

Mr. HAYDEN. If I could jump in, there is a—Congressman, thereis a diversity of technologies in the solar field which is a good char-acteristic of the technology space. We are going everywhere fromthe photovoltaics that Rhone brought the example of to concen-trating solar power, which is large scale, and if I can kind of putthe example out there of, people are very concerned about whattheir price of electricity is primarily until the lights go out andthen all of a sudden they start having concern about the reliabilityof electricity, and so around the world prices of electricity and reli-ability both vary situationally. As we start with solar today, theprimary focus outside of this proposed work is on efficiency. Every-one is looking at cost. But as solar becomes more successful, justlike wind has become more successful, then greater attention getspaid to the reliability. So it depends on where you are in the devel-opment. First you worry about cost. Then you worry about cost plusreliability, and I think that is what is looked at here is that we arestarting to be more realistic about solar than we were a few yearsago.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Bartlett, please.

CHARACTERIZATION OF SUPPORT FOR SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testi-mony. There are three groups in our country that ought to havecommon cause in wanting to move away from fossil fuels to renew-ables, solar included, and I am wondering if those three groupshave joined—have locked arms or are they now criticizing the othergroup’s premise. One is the global warming people, and of course,after you have paid the carbon price of producing the solar panel,there is no carbon emission in producing power. There are the na-tional security people, who lament the fact that we are so depend-ent on foreign oil and to the extent we can use solar, we are goingto use less foreign oil. And there are the peak oil people who be-lieve that although we may muddle through the global warmingand the national security, there is no muddling through peak oil.If it is not there, it is not there. And these three groups ought tohave common cause. Have they locked arms or are they still criti-cizing each other’s premise?

Mr. RESCH. I think everyone has been very busy and focused ontheir own respective issues, but having said that, there is a veryclear unification that these three issues need to be addressed in avery similar fashion. They are not mutually exclusive. They have


58

to be dealt with at the same time, and I would say that the groupsworking on global warming, national security, peak oil and cer-tainly solar, we are engaged with all three of those groups.

COMPARISON OF CENTRALIZED TO DISTRIBUTED SOLARENERGY

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, the solutions to those problems are exactlythe same: move away from fossil fuels to sustainable renewablesand of course solar is a big one of those. If you have grid tie, whatis the advantage of a large, centralized production rather than put-ting it over 1,000 home rooftops? I would think that the most wide-ly—the more widely dispersed it is, the better off it is. So why arewe focusing on these big facilities out in the desert that are a longway from populations, and of course the further you move theseelectrons over the wire, the fewer of them reach the other end ofthe wire, unlike you putting a gallon of oil in the pipeline 1,000miles away, you get a gallon of oil. You put electrons in a wire, andif you are far enough away you get none of them out the other endof it. So I am having trouble understanding why we are focusingon these large, centralized productions rather than distributingthem widely over thousands of house roofs.

Mr. ARVIZU. Let me start. I think our infrastructure today isbased on a concept of big power plants, big wires, and so a lot ofit has to do with, so how do we assimilate into the infrastructureof today. There is actually a cost issue, the larger scale and cer-tainly in the case of concentrating solar power, one can make thecase that there is actually better economics if you aggregate largescale, put this thing all centrally located. There is a value of dis-tributed generation, which I think is to your point that I think weprobably miss and don’t fully appreciate, and to a large degree wekind of discriminate against distributed generation because it isdifficult to hang those onto the grid today. We do need an intel-ligent grid. We need a grid that can accommodate a distributed setof generation facilities but it is more difficult today to do that. Ithink ultimately we get to a point where I think distributed gen-eration is valued at perhaps a premium as opposed—because it al-lows you lots of other flexibilities. But in today’s environment, cen-tral station power is what utilities like, and when you start—youare talking about RPSs and those things as we have in Colorado.The way you get there most quickly is large solar farms, large windfarms, and that is the kind of thing that people are looking at. Ithink ultimately we will get to, I think, the broader question thatyou are asking, which is the value of distributed generation.

NET METERING

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. Unless you are producing more elec-tricity this month than you use, don’t you automatically have netmetering? If you take the meter out and reverse it, you run it back-wards. So if you—that is why they put a seal on it, by the way,so you can’t do that. Don’t you automatically have net meteringwhether the power company wants it or not if you have solar pan-els on your roof?


59

Mr. RESCH. No, you do not. It depends entirely on your meter.If you have your standard spinning meter, the answer is yes, youhave the capability of net metering, but it is entirely dependentupon the law of that state. Each state has different net meteringlaws. In some cases you might spin it backwards and they are onlygoing to pay you wholesale electricity prices rather than retail elec-tricity prices. In some cases they are going to charge you a sur-charge for transmission and distribution. It differs by state, everystate.

RELIABILITY OF SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. BARTLETT. I have a question—we need to standardize that,of course, but I have a question about grid tie and reliability. Ihave a wind machine I put up and I find out that it is a grid-tiewind machine and it has to see 120 or it won’t produce any elec-tricity. As soon as it stops seeing 120, it stops producing electricity.Now, I understand the reason for that is you don’t want to electro-cute the poor lineman who has come to fix the wire because youare still pumping juice into it after it is down, but just when I needit most, it is not there. Wouldn’t you think that we would be inter-ested in some backup wherever you have solar panels on your roof,and shouldn’t we have systems where you can now isolate yourselffrom the grid and produce electricity for yourself with some storageon site? Just when I need it most, now it is not there.

Mr. RESCH. I think you are seeing significant advancements cer-tainly in the private sector, also the National Renewable EnergyLaboratory (NREL) with respect to storage technologies so yourtypical lead acid batteries, your car batteries are your best optiontoday. I think within a couple of years you will see some very so-phisticated storage technologies at a much lower price that allowyou to do that, sir.

Mr. BARTLETT. Even if I have the storage facility, my wind ma-chine stops working when it doesn’t see 120, or 240. It just quits.

Mr. RESCH. I am afraid that is a subject for another panel. Thisis just a solar group.

Mr. BARTLETT. When you talk of turning that off, I understandthe need for it. You don’t want to be pumping electricity into thewire when the lineman thinks it is dead so you are going to electro-cute him. I understand that. But you need a way to isolate yourhome so you still can run your freezer and have lights and so forthwhen the power is off, don’t you?

Dr. ARVIZU. You do, and there is power electronics that we arenow working on to solve those kinds of problems so that it is muchmore user friendly. We have not really focused on those stand-alone power applications as effectively as we can or should have be-cause other things have taken priority but we are working onthose.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you.Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.

SOLAR WORKFORCE TRAINING PROGRAM

A couple questions for Ms. Weissman and Mr. Sarubbi. Arizonais now the fastest-growing state in the Nation, a lot of home build-


60

ing, and people are really interested obviously. They come out thereto get out of the cold and the rain and the snow and people wantto take advantage of, you know, the wonderful sunlight we have.So in terms of this training, what kind of skill shortage do you pre-dict in the future related to solar installation and maintenancewith this increased demand, and can this legislation address thislooming shortage? And also if the two of you would address thequestion on whether or not we have communities with these train-ing programs that have actually seen an improvement in terms ofthe quality of the installers of the solar panels.

Ms. WEISSMAN. Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. Ithink without a doubt, you know, what we are starting with, ourgoal here is to have a strong market. In order to have a strongmarket, we need to have qualified installers. We need to make surethat consumer confidence is ensured, that you pay the money thatyou are paying for a system that is installed properly and that youdon’t have to come back for service calls or for fixing the initial in-stallation. In order to get to that point, you need training to makesure that we have a good installer population as well as good prod-uct to put out on the roof or in the field. We are certainly findingthat those installers that go through the North American Board ofCertified Energy Producers (NABCEP) certification program aredemonstrating a higher level of quality of installation. Now, thatdoes not mean that people who are not NABCEP certified are notqualified. I don’t want to imply that. But we are finding that hav-ing to go through the NABCEP credentialing process really takesa hard look at some of the most important issues including famili-arity with the national electrical code, making sure that—youknow, understanding orientation, understanding attachment to theroof, understanding wiring, understanding all the different majortasks and subtasks that are necessary to do a competent job so thatwe are finding that what the NABCEP certification program isdoing is not only certifying and making sure that we have qualifiedworkers but we are making sure that the training is set to thosestandards to make sure that they know what they are doing, andI think that what NABCEP has done in addition to elevating theworkforce, it has also increased the need for good training and edu-cation. And we get calls all the time, we get e-mails all the time,where can I get training so I can become NABCEP certified. Sowhat we are seeing is that not only is the credential a great signalto consumers but it is also increasing the need for better training.

Mr. SARUBBI. If I could add to my colleague Jane here, New YorkState Energy Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) hastied their incentive package to people who are certified, NABCEPcertified. So at least the homeowners who are reaping the benefitsof this incentive are at least assured that they are getting it froma certified installer, so that is helping improve the standards. Andas Jane mentioned, we are getting a lot of phone calls for trainingin Hudson Valley with the sponsorship of the Interstate RenewableEnergy Council (IREC) as well as NYSERDA are doing nationalelectrical code training seminars, you know, for the electrical in-spectors out there but also building inspectors. We are doing spe-cific training in that area, bringing as many building inspectorsinto the fold and the type of solar systems that they are going to


61

have to go out and approve in the community. So that in itself ishelping the standards increase alone. And it is amazing. We hada web site put up just a few months ago as we were getting oursolar program off the ground and the amount of hits that we aregetting on that web site, you know, showing the interest, you know,from the community out there is tremendous and I am gettingnervous from the amount of e-mails that I am receiving on a dailybasis from people who are interested in the training, either to re-ceive the training or homeowners who are interested in actuallyhave somebody who is certified, you know, to be able to install it,so they are coming to Hudson Valley. That is where they lookingfor that information because they are going out in the web: whocan I get to come install a nice solar system on the house that Iknow it is going to be a credibly installed system and it is goingto be—you know, meet all the standards of industry. So we are see-ing that growth.

Ms. GIFFORDS. The Chair recognizes Mr. Udall.

MORE ON SOLAR WORKFORCE TRAINING

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to come andhear from the panel today. This is an area, as you all know, ofgreat fascination but also great potential. I also wanted to show mysolidarity with Dr. Arvizu, who heads up the National RenewableEnergy Laboratory, which is in part located in my district in Colo-rado. This is such an exciting time for us I think as a country andas a broad industry. In Colorado we recently passed Amendment37, which put a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in place for theState of Colorado, and I took advantage of that opportunity. I nowhave a three and one half kilowatt system on my roof. It is fun tomake electricity and at the right time of day to go out and see themeter running backwards and knowing that you are not only re-ducing your own bill but you are putting some power back on thegrid. So I want to thank the Chairwoman for holding this really,really important hearing and giving us the opportunity as Membersof Congress not only to learn more about what the potential is butalso what we can do to help provide greater incentives. Having ar-rived late, I don’t know all the questions that have been asked butI am curious, given the great team that came to install the systemon my home, what sorts of stories that the panel has heard bothpositive and in some cases negative about workers without trainingattempting to install solar panels. I don’t know who would be bestto speak to that question. Ms. Weissman?

Ms. WEISSMAN. Thank you, Congressman. Well, there are alwaysstories to tell, and I think that we were finding problems. We areseeing the problems. You know, shading is a big issue. Certainlyin some parts of the country with, you know, the trees, a small treetoday could be a big tree tomorrow and so are seeing that those,you know, installers who are not properly trained are not, youknow, realizing that shading is a real issue, and if they don’t seethe tree and the leaves and even the trees in the winter whenthere are no leaves in certain parts of this country that this willbe a problem. Most states do require that a licensed electrician dothe final hookup of the system, and we think that is great and thatis how it should be, but what we are also finding is that different


62

trades who know their trade very well may not know solar verywell, and so certainly training is very important on the actual, youknow, the characteristics of solar and the technology and what isneeded to put up a good system. So what we are finding and youknow, what we are seeing now too with more incentives going onboth at the State level and the federal level, is what we want toprevent is any guy or gal with a truck and a ladder to think theycan put this stuff up on the roof. That is not true. You know, itis going to be a problem. So that even those people that may feelthat they are doing a good job may in fact not be. It was inter-esting, when we started NABCEP, the certification program, wehad a lot of the old timers say, you know, I am not going to takea test, I know what I have been doing, I have been doing this for20 years, grandfather me in, and we said absolutely not; we are notgoing to give you a seal of approval. You know, if you know whatyou are doing, you are going to pass this four-hour exam and, youknow, that will show proof that we can give you the certificationmark. So we are pretty serious in terms of making sure that if weare going to certify somebody, they know what they are doing andprevent some of the stories that we have heard or that we haveseen, some of the mistakes that have been made, some of the stu-pid mistakes that have been made out in the field. What we wantto make sure is customers are going to get, you know, a well-runsystem that is going to last a long time.

Mr. RESCH. And just to add one other comment. The IBEW hasdone, I think an excellent job in training in certain key marketsbut starting to go national training their members to certify andinstall solar systems in an appropriate manner. So I think that—when you start to see that shift where you have large trade unions,where you have, you know, large roofer groups starting to reachout and train and educate and, if you will, give them new skill sets,I think that is a fundamental sea change in the capability of in-stallers going forward. Certainly linking with Jane’s program atNABCEP is absolutely critical as well.

Ms. WEISSMAN. But if I can just add onto Mr. Resch’s comment,the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) andthe National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee(NJATC) do sit on the board of directors of the North AmericanBoard of Certified Energy Practitioners so we have been very in-volved with the union from day one. In addition, the NJATC, thetraining arm for the IBEW, just published a fantastic textbook onphotovoltaic systems which I know that a lot of the community col-leges are beginning to use as their main learning tool.

Mr. UDALL. I see my time has expired. If the Chairwoman wouldindulge me for 30 more seconds?

Speaking to your comment about shading not only with leaves ontrees but the tree branches themselves, that was one of the proc-esses we had to go through. We had a big old cottonwood tree thatwas blocking at certain times of the day the system, and I foundout in the process of installing the system that if you have anyshading on any part of the system, it affects the overall system invery dramatic ways. So we had to make the decision. It was almostlike letting go of your firstborn child, taking down this tree, but Iwas convinced that taking down the tree was worth the pain be-


63

cause of the benefits that you accrue, and I was told that takingdown the tree but at the same time installing the system was theequivalent of planting 100 more trees. So I hope that sales job wasaccurate. This was a learning process for myself and my family.

I thank the Chairwoman for her indulgence and for holding thisvery, very important hearing. These technologies and what our eco-nomic future will involve. It is also about energy security and aboutenvironmental benefits, so this is very, very important. Thank you.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Inglis.Mr. HAYDEN. Could I add to some of those comments, Madam

Chair? Some comments have been made including yours just nowwhich I would like to kind of try to—understanding though thatthe issues that we are running into about the shading, the tree,distributed—point up that there is need for more than one piece ofthe solar solution and the distributed solution that has a lot of pub-lic popularity has its limits that are important for us to overcometo get a large percentage of our energy to come from solar. For ex-ample, we have our solar test site in Tempe, Arizona, and I can tellyou that the college students that live in the condos and the urbanarea, they do not have the option of having solar on their roof. Ilive in Tempe, and even though I work on solar, my solar panelsare with APS’s site at Prescott, Arizona, and the reason is, as anengineer I know that they are far more productive than they wouldbe on my roof, and that is important to me. If I am going to seea lot of our resources put into a very important solar panel andalso find storage options, I don’t want to see them wasted in an im-perfect application. So to address some of the points made, thereis—about 85 percent of the energy that comes from a Four Cornerspower plant makes it to the customer in Phoenix. The highest frac-tion of that energy goes over the wires. The wires are very goodat delivering energy. So even though we do see the value of rooftopsolar, it certainly won’t get us to the 40 percent-type number thatsolar I think could get if we are allowed to build larger facilitiesthat are more efficient, bring the power in to where it is needed,and secondly, to bring in the storage technologies that would allowthe utility to help provide that backup power that otherwise thesepanels can’t do on their own. So it underscores I think one of thevalues of this discussion is that it is not a one size, one solutionfits all. If we want mainstream America to use solar, we have gotto make it easy. We can’t just make it for us environmentally moti-vated folks to be the only ones using solar. Thank you.

EFFICIENCY OF SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. INGLIS. A follow-up on that. If the efficiency of the conversionwere higher, it would make the distributed more attractive, right?

Mr. HAYDEN. No, not at all. The efficiency is a good parameterbut the fluctuation is the issue that talks about reliability. In fact,when we build a project of any size, we have to look at the reli-ability on customers. The Congressman talked about the wind sys-tem tripping. That also affects things like your power electronics,manufacturing businesses, power quality. So if you do have an effi-cient system that is good for its economics but there will be inter-ruptions from clouds. There will be interruptions for other reasonsand we have to match the load.


64

STORAGE FOR SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. INGLIS. Which brings me to the other question which isabout the storage issue which, from what I have been hearing thismorning, is crucial. It seems that the section of the bill—sectionsof the bill dealing with that are relatively brief. Is there somethingelse we should be saying in those sections about storage besideswhat we are saying here?

Mr. HAYDEN. We discussed that before. We provided testimonyon that very subject because we see more than just the thermalbeing possible storage solutions. The thermal is worth mentioningbecause in the case of certain technologies, thermal is very directlyused but there is other proven large-scale solar technology for stor-age—I am sorry—storage technologies such as compressed air en-ergy storage, other things that while we are all waiting and work-ing on the new batteries, there are things that can be done sort ofon a regional basis.

Mr. INGLIS. I suppose these battery breakthroughs really couldalso be the—I mean, there are a number of things that if theybroke could make it so that there—if we had the breakthroughs ina various number of areas, you would have wide scale—more useof the resource, right?

Dr. ARVIZU. There is no question about that. Storage has contin-ued, as I call it, to be the Achilles heel of renewable energy in gen-eral. If we just had a better storage system—we have been workingon batteries for a very long time, literally, you know, decades. Andprogress is slow. Progress—we are making progress but progress isslow, and I think ultimately, you know, converting wind and theother intermittent type of resources to some sort of energy carrierlike hydrogen or compressed air, whatever it might be, is reallygoing to change the economic equation considerably. I know I siton the National Science Board and we are doing things for—actu-ally trying to provide power at the South Pole while we are doingsome fairly energy-intensive experiments, and what are looking forstand-alone systems that are not polluting, because right now wehave got—we are polluting in the southern hemisphere because ofall the diesel fuel that we are using down there. And we are look-ing for, you know, some of these advanced concepts that downthere you would pay an exorbitant amount of money for that par-ticular application and there are some things—we are looking athow can you convert wind energy to hydrogen and to use it whenyou essentially—when the wind doesn’t blow or solar energy to hy-drogen or a variety of other technologies and things, and I thinkultimately you need to look at that whole system’s architecture. Soyou need to look at them in the broadest context. You know, I amvery bullish on the fact of zero-energy buildings. We use more en-ergy in buildings than in most any other application that we haveand so the distributed value on a building that is efficiently de-signed with its own power generation source and its own storagehas great value and benefit. At the systems level, is it still a littlebit costly although we are making huge progress and we have gotexamples of Habitat for Humanity homes that generate more en-ergy that they consume, and so it can be done on a modest build-ing, and it is a matter of changing a variety of things. It is what


65

we talked about earlier, bring the price signal where the decisionsare being made. You know, construction for buildings is notincentivized to save energy. And so all those things need to be partof the package and I think we need to look more holistically at thewhole issue.

CONVERSION TO HYDROGEN

Mr. INGLIS. To the objection I hear, and when I talk about hydro-gen, about why convert, just out of curiosity, it is not exactly a sub-ject of this hearing but why convert to hydrogen in those cases youtalked about, particularly at the Poles where Dr. Bartlett and Isaw the same thing you are talking about, diesel fuel being broughtin belching out the smokestacks when we got a lot of wind and asolar there.

Dr. ARVIZU. The why convert part is because it really is an ele-gant solution. You don’t pollute anything, obviously. You convert—you know, you change water to hydrogen and oxygen and then youuse the energy and it converts back to water. It is very costly atthis point and that is the reason that we don’t do it more, youknow, uniformly elsewhere. But in that particular environment, thecost that you pay for the energy of transporting fossil fuel downthere is exorbitant and there is just no reason why you wouldn’tin terms of economics do the thing that is less environmentally in-sulting than the other thing.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you.Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Hall.Mr. HALL. Thank you.


Mr. Resch, you know, as in some other fields, global warming, forinstance, everybody talks about the cost and the fears and the pro-jections and predictions and all but most of those people that arerecommending that we just go all out on global warming fail to talkabout cost. They shy away from that. They don’t want to talk aboutwho has to go by the cash register at a time when China is pol-luting on an increasing ratio with coal. So I will ask you some-thing. How about the industry? Has anyone expressed any concernabout planning the assessment, and will this result in increasedcost to the consumer? I don’t see how you can keep from it, but youwould have to answer that. And how much would the assessmentbe and how is it going to be done, case-by-case basis or individ-ually?

Mr. RESCH. Thank you for your question, and with respect to thecheck-off program, I think there is initially concern about what isthe right way to structure it, where do you assess within the solarstream, how far upstream, how far downstream, do you assess atthe installer or do you assess at the manufacturer, should it in-clude all equipment, should it just include PV modules, what aboutsolar water heating. There are a lot of questions and I think goodquestions that need to be resolved and I think the way this pro-gram is structured is, it has flexibility, that all the rules are notset in stone, that there is an opportunity to adjust the rate or de-termine an appropriate rate that would actually produce an appro-


66

priate amount of money that, you know, first the industry is will-ing to spend and raise and that it doesn’t penalize the consumeror penalize the manufacturer to the greatest extent. So, you know,I would say we don’t have all the answers but part of that is thediscussion with the Department of Energy and getting the boardtogether to determine what is the right level and just make sureall the right players are involved. I mean, we have a couple of sug-gestions in our written testimony for improvements to the programand I think what you will find is that most or all of the manufac-turers will agree that what is needed is a campaign along theselines. They may disagree on timing when that program should bein place but all of them want to participate and make sure theyhave a voice in the development of that program.

Mr. HALL. Well, we got airliners that, all except Southwest, aregoing broke flying full and going broke because of fuel and theyhave to turn to the consumer. You might hear in the city of Wash-ington the cab drivers I think at midnight last night increasedtheir minimum fee to $2.50 instead of $1.50. That has gone up al-most 50 percent. How are we going to keep the assessment fromgoing to the consumer? Why wouldn’t it?

Mr. RESCH. Well, there is two ways to look at it, one of whichis that as there is more competition, there is a lot more pressureon the price downward, and when you look at the oil and gas in-dustry other than propane, they shy away from any kind of struc-ture along these lines because it actually goes back to the producer,that the costs are passed back to the producer, not onto the con-sumer because the consumer is only willing to spend so much, andwhat we have really seen in the solar industry in the last coupleof years is increased competition, increased competition to putcheaper panels. They are scaling up manufacturing. Prices arecoming down. You know, feedstock materials are starting to in-crease in supply and again putting downward pressure on theprice. It is unclear. I mean, I think if you were to step back withan economist, you would have one—two economists, one of themwould say it is going to be passed on to the consumer, the otherwould say that the manufacturers will absorb the cost. But I thinkwhat we are looking for, you know, is a level of assessment thatis small enough so that it is not a major hit on either side, themanufacturer’s side or the installer’s side but yet collectively asthis industry grows, we can use those resources to educate the pub-lic on the benefits of solar energy.

Mr. HALL. To be continued?Mr. RESCH. To be continued. Absolutely.Mr. HALL. Let me ask the panel, if I have some more time here.

The language of the bill provides for criminal penalties for releaseof information obtained under the authority of the Act to ‘‘anyagency or officer of the United States for any purpose other thanimplementation of this Act.’’ What information do you think theyare seeking to protect here? What is being protected, and do youagree that criminal penalties are necessary?

Mr. RESCH. Well, I think a lot of it is confidential business infor-mation and, you know, I think that part of that provision you arereferring to goes back to the hey, you know, we need you to openyour books in order for us to make sure that what you are report-


67

ing to us is accurate if you are participating in this program andthat if that information leaks out-a lot of it is CBI that you wouldwant to make sure that companies are comfortable with the gov-ernment looking into their books with respect to confidential busi-ness information, if I am referring to the section of the bill that youare.

Mr. HALL. It is a mandatory program?Mr. RESCH. It is a mandatory program that companies can opt

out of.Mr. HALL. And it is pretty strong language, ‘‘any agency or offi-

cer,’’ that provides for criminal penalties. That is pretty strong. Doyou agree that criminal penalties are necessary?

Mr. RESCH. I think that what——Mr. HALL. You may not have an opinion.Mr. RESCH. This program is modeled after the existing agri-

culture programs and, you know, what I would say is, certainly wecan discuss the right way to ensure compliance and maybe that isan overly aggressive way and maybe the way it works in agri-culture shouldn’t—you know, we shouldn’t be doing it in energy.But I would say this is modeled after existing programs. So itseems to have worked previously but certainly there is opportuni-ties to modify it if necessary.

Mr. HALL. My time is up. There is a lot more we could discuss,but I can do that with you by letter. I thank you.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Hall.


And Mr. Resch, just to clarify, how many other programs are outthere that we are looking at? I know we talked about milk, wetalked about beef.

Mr. RESCH. There are 17 programs right now between energyand agriculture that are promotion programs along these lines.

Ms. GIFFORDS. And have there been problems with companiesand confidentiality and issues like this in the past that we knowof?

Mr. RESCH. I would have to get back to you on that. I don’t havespecific examples. I imagine that they are consistently written inthe same manner in order to address concerns that have beenraised in the past but I am not entirely sure.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Hall, we will get back to you on that becauseI am curious as well.

Mr. Bartlett.Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I would just like to note

that if there were an unending succession of ANWRs and we werewilling to pay the price for sequestering the CO2, we wouldn’t needto be talking about solar, would we? But the reality is that thereis not an unending succession of ANWRs. I have ten kids, 15grandkids and two great-grandkids, and wouldn’t it be nice if I leftthem a little energy for their future, which is one of the reasonsI won’t vote to drill in ANWR until they commit to me they aregoing to use all the energy from ANWR to invest in alternativesbecause today we have no surplus energy to invest in alternativesor oil wouldn’t be $69 a barrel, right?


68

I would also like to note that unless you are making hydrogenfrom a non-fossil fuel, using hydrogen probably results in a largercarbon footprint than not using it unless you are going to use it ina fuel cell, which we don’t yet have because you will always get lessenergy from the less hydrogen that you get from the energy sourcein which you produced it. If that is a fossil fuel, obviously burninghydrogen in a reciprocating engine is going to leave a larger carbonfootprint than if you hadn’t used the original fuel. Just noting howwe are creatures of habit, I was at the South Pole twice in the lastfive years. For six months the sun shines all day, every day andthe wind never stops blowing, and we create essentially all of ourpower there from flown-in diesel. Now, is that dumb? We are reallycreatures of habit, aren’t we?

You know, the sun is 93 million miles away. I have a place inWest Virginia. My friends are amazed that I make ice from thesun. I have a Sun Frost refrigerator hooked up. But I put my firstsolar panels on the roof. I have 153 acres. They said, why in thedevil are you doing that. You know, the sun is 93 million milesaway. If I put it on the roof or on the ground beside the building,it makes no difference as far as the sun is concerned. It is verymuch cheaper and easier to put it down on the ground. So unlessyou are in a subdivision and have got to put it on your roof, don’tput it on your roof. It is a whole lot easier to maintain on theground. A big cost, a big part of the cost of putting in these solarpanels is just the carpentry or whatever you want to call it tomount these things, and you don’t need to have some guy do that,you know. The Home Depot has a great slogan, ‘‘You can do it. Wecan help.’’ We need to be telling these people how to mount it. Idon’t have any problem with a certified electrician hooking up thepower. Wiring them and hooking it is a very small part of the costof putting them in, and you don’t need to have somebody come putit in. If you can change a faucet washer, you can install solar pan-els. It really isn’t that tough. So I would just encourage you, youdon’t need to further increase the cost of putting these in. You cando it; we can help, and we need some help out there like, you know,you don’t put it where it is going to be shaded and so forth.

MORE ON STORAGE FOR SOLAR

Let me ask you a question about storage. Isn’t it true that forthese large facilities, it is hard to beat the battery that never fails,which is—unless you have to replace the pump or the turbine. Whydon’t we just pump water uphill and then let it flow back when weneed the energy? Isn’t that about as good a battery as we can getwith about as high efficiency as any battery we have got?

Mr. HAYDEN. Simple answer, yes.Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. If the project permits it, why shouldn’t we

be doing that everywhere?Mr. HAYDEN. Well, everywhere including desert climates where

water is—Arizona is an example where it is done today on hydroplants that exist. Creating a new hydro plant just for that purposewould require a high reservoir, a low reservoir, water, et cetera. Sothose are the practical issues. I do recognize pumped hydros beinga very excellent efficient solution when you can do it. Compressedair is another one that we are looking at it because it has similar


69

favorable attributes, different implementation. But in terms of Ari-zona as an example, most of the lakes, water flows downhill sothere are those places where it has been done, Roosevelt Lake andothers, I believe, but I think that in terms of creating new lakesjust for that purpose, that would be quite a challenge on the waterside.

Mr. BARTLETT. There are a lot of places where the topographyand the water available——

Mr. HAYDEN. If I may, I know that those discussions have beentaken to the dam operators and they have had challenges in termsof their most economical operation of that asset. So you would haveto take that question to some of the existing dam operators.

Mr. BARTLETT. I would just like to note that if you don’t haveelectricity, the thing you miss the most is lights, and it is veryeasy, and I would encourage—I would hope that we would encour-age people if they are putting in a stand-alone system that theyuse direct current lights. You don’t need an inverter. It is reallysimple. You have a solar panel and you have lights, and if they aredirect current, they work, and there is really nothing to fail. So thefirst thing you miss in your home when the electricity goes off isthe lights go off, and if you are looking at those things that makelife comfortable, you know, being able to see and have lights is veryessential, and that is pretty much a failsafe system if you have di-rect current, DC. If you have 120 volts, you got that really com-plicated inverter full of—I don’t trust computers in these littlethings. They may or may not work. The lead acid battery works allthe time, doesn’t it? And you don’t need anything in between thebattery and your 12-volt or 24-volt or 48-volt valise on your fluores-cent lights, do you? It is a very efficient use of electricity and veryfailsafe, and I think more people ought to be encouraged to putthose in, and that is so you can see your way around the housewhen the lights go out, right?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.

WATER USE FOR CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER

We don’t have a tremendous amount of time left and I would likethe panel to focus a few minutes on this issue of water, and Mr.Hayden, perhaps Dr. Arvizu as well. You know, obviously out westwe do have some real issues in terms of just not having the water.We have got 25 million users on the Colorado River right now. Weare in a drought. We have increased demands of the current watersupply that we do have. So I am interested in terms of the require-ments for a CSP plant. Can they be built to use air cooling insteadof water cooling enabled to eliminate the water requirements, andare water constraints an obstacle to the wider adoption in youropinion of CSP technologies?

Mr. HAYDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, water is an issue.It is one of the issues that is on the sequence of working throughthe biggest challenge of cost just to get us started which fortu-nately, in my years of working this, I see a lot of progress rightnow so I am happy to hear that we are starting to look at thewater, meaning that we are serious about this moving forward, andit is absolutely an issue. The present day CSP systems use water


70

for cooling to about the extent that a conventional power plantdoes, and therefore it is acceptable in some views but we would liketo do better. Obviously a lot of farmland is getting converted forresidential largely because of water so the water situation is notstatic. It is becoming more of a pressure. So in every sense if wewant to use more of this energy technology, reducing water use isimportant. In terms of the present-day designs, there is somethingcalled air cooling where they replace the water evaporation cyclewith fans and just move the air through a radiator-type structure.That can be done today but it wasn’t the economical solution forthe present-day installations. It is available today but we wouldlike our cake and eat it too. We would like it to be available andalso more efficient and less costly. Secondly, I will mention thatother concentrating solar power technologies including con-centrated photovoltaics, dish engine technologies don’t use watercooling at all. So when we again talk about CSP, usually we aretalking about the trough technology with water cooling but thereare other technology solutions that will compete with the troughand so a trough needs to try to move itself forward with water re-duction and at the same time these other technologies might comeforward and be low-water-use technologies. In fact, we sometimesnotice how little water is valued on a dollar basis and yet howmuch it is valued on an emotional basis, and that sort of contradic-tion is what we are grappling here with on its application withsolar.

Dr. ARVIZU. If I could add just a little bit on that. Absolutely, Ithink we have been looking at technologies that really don’t use,you know, any water that is not self-contained in the system. Youknow, for a long time, I can remember in the 1980s we looked ata variety of gas-cooled reactors. We looked at—we have actuallythe best heat transfer medium for these concentrating thermal sys-tems is typically a molten salt or something that has got a veryhigh specific heat to it. So you don’t have really a contained waterneed for the actual, you know, working end of those particularplants and there are ways to get around having to use any waterif you really chose to do that, but it is a matter of economics. Itis a matter of pushing the technology and making it most cost-ef-fective. And there is in fact as Mr. Hayden says this whole ideathat you can put concentrating photovoltaics. The biggest problemwith these concentrating systems, as I mentioned in my testimony,is the upfront capital cost, and one of the things that we are look-ing at is how can you reduce that cost dramatically in some ofthese concentrating—troughs in fact are some things that are beingpioneered right now in Australia that are I think very cost-effectiveand also can be done in a manner that is very, very miserly rel-ative to the water use. So this is not a problem that I believe isin any way a showstopper or couldn’t be overcome but for the willand the R&D program that goes along with trying to stand up withsome pilots to make sure that it operates the way we think it oughtto.

CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER

Ms. GIFFORDS. A couple other questions, because I know we arerunning out of time. First of all, APS, Mr. Hayden, I understood


71

took 14 years to construct the solar trough, 14 years, I think. Whywas the hiatus so long, and is that something that we can learnfrom as well?

Mr. HAYDEN. Well, the proper way to look at that 14 years is,no one had done it in 14 years and we chose to pursue that, andI will give you a pragmatic answer. I have been going to DOEmeetings for all my career and having the solar industry run upand say buy 100-megawatt power plant and everything will be fine.Now, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars whenthey do that and we under a regulated structure do not have theopportunity to just spend hundreds of millions of dollars that is notleast cost so what we chose to do was to challenge those solar com-panies to make a small-scale plant just to prove that they could geton their feet again because the present regime of folks making thetrough is not the same folks that built it decades ago and they ac-tually needed to give a new start. So literally when they built ourfirst megawatt, it was all of a sudden kind of a deer in the head-lights moment when oh, you mean we really have to build thisthing, and they had fundamental decisions such as were they goingto use aluminum or were they going to use steel, who were theygoing to get their tubes from. So fortunately, even though one one-megawatt is a very small project, it gave them the opportunity tostart getting it together, and then when they had the 64-megawattopportunity in Nevada, they had momentum. All I can say that wedid was, we broke the ice. We didn’t have dollars available underour regulated structure to buy hundreds of megawatts but we didhave the dollars available to break the ice.

MORE ON SOLAR WORKFORCE TRAINING

Ms. GIFFORDS. Before I turn to Mr. Inglis, Mr. Resch, if you couldaddress Mr. Bartlett’s comments about—and I know he had toleave—about just anyone being able to kind of put on these solarpanels and—I mean, I am not an expert but it sounds—what Ihave seen is pretty complicated stuff.

Mr. RESCH. There is two points I will make there. First is thatHome Depot does sell solar panels in New Jersey and in California,and if you wanted to go out and by a solar system, you could doit. Say you have a garden shed and you wanted to put lights upin the back, very simple, you know, something you could do. Youare dealing with electricity so you have got to be smart about itand so you don’t want anybody—you don’t want your kids runningout there and playing around with it. I mean, it is electricity. Butwhen you really do step back and understand electricity, it is fairlyunderstandable. Now, he is referring to a direct current, a DC,versus what we actually use in our homes, which is alternatingcurrent, so it gets a little more complicated. You have more equip-ment. I decided to use a contractor to install the solar system inmy house because I don’t want to climb up on a roof, first of all.Second of all, I don’t really understand electricity all that well inthe sense of how I install it in my home, and just like anythingelse, I went out and I got three bids, and so when CongressmanUdall was talking about shading and all the rest, well, you know,there is a little bit of the buyer beware. You want to get three bids,just like you would for any system. When you install an air condi-


72

tioning system in your house, a hot water heater, you are going toget a couple of bids and then find out which one is the best andwhich one seems the most knowledgeable. So I would tend to saythat we are not quite there with the technology to say it is plugand play, any consumer could go out and just quickly install it ontheir house with respect to photovoltaics. I think we will get thereat some point in time. We are not there yet.

Mr. SARUBBI. Can I just add to that? Teaching electricity in myentire career and former electrician, I would be a little nervous toknow that homeowners were going to go out on a regular basis andinstall systems, you know, when we talk about grounding needs,when we start talking about liability because the first time thereis a fire at somebody’s house, the thing you hear most often is thatit came from electricity, it was an electrical problem. So we cer-tainly don’t want to create that environment with the solar indus-try where people are going to Home Depot and not that they can’tbuy that small type of system but if I am going to be putting a3KW, seven or even 10KW system on my house, I want to knowthat it is installed by a certified, you know, company that I havegot longevity with that system and so I would be a little leeryabout moving in that direction at this point in the industry. AndDC in reference to AC, converters today are so much more efficientand reliable, you know, that I don’t see the conversion of movingto DC, you know, in our house, direct current power and retro-fitting all our lights for that, you know, environment, as opposedto staying with alternating current just doesn’t make sense at thispoint.


Mr. INGLIS. Just one quick follow-up. We were talking earlierabout the reporting requirements and the disclosure of information,and did anybody want to make any further comments about that?Is there something about the disclosure of information that was ofconcern in previous programs, these 17 programs?

Dr. ARVIZU. I am not exactly sure what the major issues were.We are aware of some lawsuits that have been brought against theU.S. Department of Agriculture based on those programs. It kindof—it highlights the fact that there is a liability issue or risk thatcomes along with monitoring or administering one of these pro-grams, and I don’t have the details of that but I would suggest thatthere is a lot more to be—to explore regarding what assumption ofliabilities there are in administering the program.

Mr. INGLIS. I have no further questions, Madam Chair.Ms. GIFFORDS. Before bringing this hearing to a close, I just

want to thank all of our panelists and I really want to thank youfor the time and the effort that went into preparing for your testi-mony today and for helping to craft this legislation. I also want tothank the other Members for being here and asking some greatquestions. I learned a lot and I hope that Members did and thegeneral public as well.

The record will be held open for additional statements from theMembers and for answers to any follow-up questions the Sub-committee may ask the witnesses. The witnesses are excused andthe hearing is now adjourned. Thank you all very much.


73

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]



(75)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS


76


Responses by Herbert T. Hayden, Solar Technology Coordinator, Arizona PublicService Company, Phoenix, Arizona

As the Solar Technology Coordinator for APS, my field of activity has been on thetechnological assessment and advancement of solar technologies. I am pleased tooffer my views on the technical topics such as thermal energy storage, solar integra-tion to regional transmission grids, and reduction of water consumption as theseissues relate to larger scale solar technologies such as concentrated solar projects(CSP).

However, there are other aspects of the proposed legislation pertaining to work-force training and the promotion of solar power anti certification, which are policiesmore directly impacting manufacturers and installers of photovoltaic systems (PV),and other solar-related equipment. Those questions would be better answered bythose individuals who are more familiar with the public policy concerns associatedwith the development of the solar industries. My answers in those areas are limitedand I respectfully defer to others who may feel qualified to address those issues.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. Are you familiar with the Institute of Sustainable Power? Do you feel com-fortable having them run a certification program? What type of a fee would youenvision would be required for them to ‘‘certify’’ workforce training programs?

A1. I am not familiar with the Institute of Sustainable PowerQ2. Have you reviewed the legislation being proposed here today? Do you think it

makes sense to create two additional layers of bureaucracy for the Secretary ofEnergy to promote solar power or do you feel it would be easier to just give DOEa grant to promote solar power? Please explain.

A2. We believe the objectives of the legislation regarding thermal storage and CSPare appropriate and productive. I have not reviewed the referenced legislation in re-gards to the education and promotion of solar power, and I do not have an opinionon those aspects.Q3. Do you think solar power needs to be promoted in order to be successful as an

energy resource?

A3. I believe that solar power is a proven energy technology, however the costs ofsolar are still too high for it to compete as an energy resource of substantial scale.Solar costs can be further reduced as the technology advances and matures, and in-centives for the use of solar will allow that to happen more quickly. Promotion ofthe benefits of solar power can also encourage the use of solar.Q4. Do you support the language in the bill that requires private companies to open

their books and records to Members of the Board for inspection?

A4. I have no opinion on this question.Q5. The language of the bill provides for criminal penalties for release of informa-

tion obtained under the authority of the Act to ‘‘any agency or officer of theUnited States for any purpose other than implementation of this Act.’’ What in-formation do you believe this language is seeking to protect? Do you agree crimi-nal penalties are necessary?

A5. I have no opinion on this question.Q6. The language of section 9 requires the continuation of the solar promotion board

and committee should be contingent upon a vote by the manufacturers and im-porters. Would you support a referendum prior to creation of the Board andCommittee? Why or why not?

A6. I have no opinion on this question.Q7. What enforcement by the Secretary of Energy do you envision that might war-

rant a civil penalty for noncompliance under section 10 of this bill? Is this sec-tion necessary?

A7. I have no opinion on this question.Q8. What type of investigation do you believe it would be necessary for the Secretary

of Energy to conduct under Section 11 of this bill?


77

A8. I have no opinion on this question.Q9. How will your organization benefit from this legislation?A9. APS, as a public utility with a strong commitment to the development of renew-able energy resources would derive benefits from a comprehensive energy bill thata) provided incentives for utility use of solar, such as the ITC, and b) aided in tech-nical areas such as thermal energy storage, reduced water consumption, and the in-tegration of CSP facilities with regional transmission grids.Q10. What kind of yearly revenues does the solar industry have which could be used

in a promotion program as envisioned by the legislation?A10. I do not have the knowledge of the facts pertaining to solar industry revenues.Q11. Where does each of you see solar power as a part of the Nation’s energy mix

by 2015 by percentage if this bill is enacted?A11. Solar is the largest renewable energy resource in Arizona. If you add the possi-bility of integrating solar energy into the regional transmission grid and improvingits availability with storage or other methods, the contribution of solar energy insunny regions like the southwest could help states in the southwest and west reachtheir overall renewable energy goals, which currently range from 10 percent to 20percent or more. I am not in a position to determine how this would translate tothe Nation’s energy mix as a whole, where other renewable energy resources mayalso contribute a substantial share of the Nation’s energy mix. However, from atechnical perspective, the intermittent nature of solar energy resources requiresutilities to rely heavily upon conventional energy resources to meet customer de-mands and to protect infrastructure. If technology is developed to allow for solar en-ergy storage or other means of making the output of a solar plant firm and reliable,this would make solar energy more viable for a greater share of the Nation’s energymix.Q12. What is your view of cost sharing of the training programs between the states

and Federal Government?A12. I have no opinion on this question.Q13. Are the unions opposed to the training provisions in the bill?A13. I have no information on this topic.Q14. Is the Draft discussion draft duplicative of any current programs? If so which

ones? What are the metrics that will evaluate success of the training or solarprograms?

A14. I have no information on this topic.Q15. Recognizing the scarce resources of the Federal Government, would you rather

see tax dollars go to innovative technologies or advertising solar power?A15. From my perspective as a technologist, federal support for innovative tech-nologies is critical. However, the question about whether advertising is a more effec-tive way to use tax dollars is outside of the purview of my work and is an issuebetter answered by others.Q16. In your opinion why does the contribution of solar power remain relatively low?

Is it ultimately due to the cost?A16. Cost is certainly a major reason the contribution of solar power in the overallenergy mix remains low today. In addition, most solar technologies generate elec-tricity only when the sun is shining so other sources of electricity are necessary toprovide firm electric power in response to customer demand. For those solar powertechnologies that include storage capability, cost continues to be a factor since thecost of storage adds to the overall cost of the infrastructure. Both issues will needto be addressed for solar to become a larger part of the electric energy mix for anyelectric power utility.Q17. The Thermal Energy Storage Section of the discussion draft is quite brief and

your testimony seems to focus on the need for a great deal of research and de-velopment into the area of thermal energy storage. What elements do you feelshould be addressed in a thermal energy storage research and development pro-gram?

A17. As to the elements that should be addressed in a thermal research and devel-opment program, the key is that the market related to this technology responds todemonstrated solutions. Therefore, even existing technology concepts could be more


78

rapidly accepted as economically feasible if there was a commercial demonstration,and one that exhibited favorable cost, environmental and reliability features. Stud-ies and lab validations are an essential first step. However, to attract the kind ofup-front capital needed for a commercial project, a significant demonstration withan ongoing field operation may prove necessary to satisfy investors.Q18. Are you supportive of a check off program for solar energy as included in the

discussion draft? Would ASP be a participant?A18. My understanding is the term ‘‘check-off program’’ relates to a program forsolar education and promotion that would apply to manufacturers and importers ofsolar products. Whether APS would be a subject to such a check-off program willdepend on a variety of factors, therefore we would seek clarification of how the pro-gram could apply to a utility that could be working with solar products.Q19. You mention the use of federal land for locating large scale CSP. What environ-

mental, including siting concerns, do you see being faced by such a project?2,500 contiguous acres of land is how big of an area? Can you give me a frameof reference?

A19. In regards to the reference to 2,500 acres of land, consider that a square mile‘‘section’’ of land is 640 acres. The 2,500 acre suggestion would be about four squaremiles, and could accommodate sufficient CSP facilities for the generation of approxi-mately 500 MW of power. The factors that would have to be considered as part ofa site selection would be an Environmental Impact Statement, consideration of im-pacts on adjoining property uses, the available natural resources, zoning restric-tions, taxes, etc.Q20. You’ve testified that CSP is ‘‘the most cost effective solar technology’’ and the

one that has the ‘‘greatest potential to compete economically’’ with conventionalgeneration. What are the relative costs between CSP and conventional genera-tion? Could you elaborate on the figures you are using? Follow up—You havetestified in favor of a long-term extension of the 30 percent Investment tax cred-it (ITC). How long is ‘‘long-term’’ in your mind? And as you’ve said the poten-tial for CSP to be competitive is so great, would it be so without the ITC inplace.

A20. Projects with commercially demonstrated CSP technologies are being offeredat less than twice the cost of conventional generation, sometimes significantly less,but not quite competitive with conventional generation. These current project costsare dependent on the 30 percent ITC, currently available to third-party owners. TheITC reduces the cost sufficiently to make large scale CSP attractive to many utili-ties. If the ITC is not extended, we believe large scale CSP plants will be simplytoo expensive and will not be constructed in the foreseeable future. Large scale CSPplants take a minimum of three to five years to site, permit and construct. Con-sequently, the ITC should be extended for a minimum of five years, but ten yearswould be preferable. We believe that ten years would be sufficient to generate nu-merous projects resulting in greatly reduced costs and a sustainable industry, inde-pendent of tax credits.Q21. Would you favor extending the 30 percent ITC to public utilities? If it were to

be extended to these entities, would it make sense to place greater costs for re-search, training, land use and environmental concerns and the overall pro-motion of solar power on these public utilities?

A21. Generally, we favor the use of a meaningful ITC program as an incentive topublic utilities for the investment in renewable energy facilities such as CSP. How-ever, an ITC has to be carefully weighed by an organization contemplating usingthe ITC to see if its operations qualify, and whether the conditions on the ITC canbe met.Q22. Mr. Hayden, you mention in your testimony that one of the main issues with

solar and wind energy is their intermittency. You suggest that we need moreR&D into the area of storage. Are the storage issues different between wind andsolar energy? Should we focus our energies on storage for stationary applica-tions generally so that we could use the research for more than just solar tech-nologies? Without adequate storage technology, how much growth can reason-ably be expected in the solar energy market?

A22. Wind and solar energy definitely have different storage issues in terms ofavailability and compatibility with current technologies. Wind energy technologiesand the various kinds of solar energy technologies would integrate differently withthe known available storage technologies, such as thermal, compressed air, pumped


79

hydro, and batteries. For example, any source of electric energy could be used todrive the compressor of a compressed air storage system, or to pump water for ahydro-storage system, which stores the energy for later use. However, since the CSPsystems use thermal processes, they have a unique opportunity to use thermal stor-age more directly by storing solar heat before it is used to make electricity.

In summary, a broad support of stationary storage solutions in conjunction withthe development of CSP resources is a good idea, and thermal storage technologyis particularly well associated with current CSP plans. Without some means of ad-dressing the availability of intermittent renewable energy sources, and providing in-centives such as ITC and rate recovery, public utilities like APS will continue to findit difficult to expand solar energy in its energy mix. APS regards all of these issuesas important to the further development of renewable energy resources and withoutsome changes in these areas, electric utilities will continue to primarily rely upontraditional energy resources to meet their customer needs and protect existing infra-structure.


80


Responses by Rhone Resch, President, Solar Energy Industries Association

The Solar Energy Industries Association thanks the Subcommittee for the oppor-tunity to testify and to provide written responses to questions asked by the Com-mittee Ranking Member. On the questions pertaining to workforce training, wewould defer to those expert witnesses who appeared before the Subcommittee to tes-tify specifically on the workforce provisions in the discussion draft. Should you haveadditional questions either relating to or independent of the responses below, pleasedo not hesitate to contact our offices at your convenience.


Q1. Have you reviewed the legislation being proposed here today? Do you think itmakes sense to create two additional layers of bureaucracy for the Secretary ofEnergy to promote solar power or do you feel it would be easier to just give DOEa grant to promote solar power? Please explain.

A1. SEIA reviewed the discussion draft prior to the hearing and has since had theopportunity to review the provisions that were passed out of the Committee. Basedon our reading of the draft, the primary composition of the Board, and the directionit is to provide, will come from industry. The participation of the Secretary of En-ergy on the Board seems appropriate, given the large role the DOE plays in the de-velopment of solar technologies, but it seems clear that the solar industry will (ap-propriately) remain the lead agent in disseminating information about solar prod-ucts.Q2. Do you think solar power needs to be promoted in order to be successful as an

energy resource?A2. Solar power, particularly in the distribution generation model, requires in-creased consumer awareness in order to achieve greater deployment. As we havestated in written testimony to the Committee,

Though growing exponentially and constantly innovating, the U.S. solar indus-try is still in a nascent period. . .solar [photovoltaics] provides less than 1/30thof one percent of the current U.S. electricity supply. Furthermore, PV is pri-marily a distributed generation technology that is installed on the rooftops ofhomes and businesses throughout the U.S.—a paradigm shift from the tradi-tional model of centralized electricity generation. Most solar installation compa-nies are small businesses, typically employing no more than a few dozen people,and lacking the budget to reach a broad swath of consumers.Thus, even as consumers embrace the idea of solar power, they are usually notfully aware of its capabilities and they have misconceptions about how a solarenergy system works in a home. Market reports demonstrate a lack of consumerunderstanding that solar electricity operates just like regular electricity and isthe same kind of electricity that a local utility company provides. 29 percent ofrespondents to the May 2007 Roper survey were not aware that solar energycan power common electric devices like computers or appliances. A number ofcommon myths persist about modern solar technology, such as the belief thatsolar will not work in places outside of the Sunbelt or that solar devices requiremore energy to manufacture than they produce in their lifetime, and thesemyths often inhibit consumer consideration of solar as a viable energy source.Furthermore, consumers lack information on how to find solar companies orwhat solar products might be available. On a daily basis, the most commonphone calls to SEIA come from consumers who ask, ‘‘Where can I find solar formy home?’’ The industry has taken a number of steps to centralize this typeof information, including the development of a national solar installer directory,Findsolar.com. Individually, several companies have undertaken consumerawareness campaigns that focus on basic technology education. Yet these effortsclearly do not equate to the potential reach of a national consumer awarenesscampaign.

Therefore, we believe that a national campaign promoting solar energy would sig-nificantly increase solar’s market growth.Q3. Do you support the language in the bill that requires private companies to open

their books and records to Members of the Board for inspection? The languageof the bill provides for criminal penalties for release of information obtained


81

under the authority of the Act to ‘‘any agency or officer of the United States forany purpose other than implementation of this Act.’’ What information do youbelieve this language is seeking to protect? Do you agree criminal penalties arenecessary?

A3. All corporations have confidential business information that must be safe-guarded in order to encourage companies to do business in the U.S. The relevantprovisions of this discussion draft are designed to facilitate the collection of marketdata for purposes of levying assessments on producers, while safeguarding datafrom dilatory or improper use. We perceive that this approach borrows largely fromthe legislation used to create other industry check-off programs and would welcomea continuing dialogue on how best to achieve effective reporting and compliance.Q4. The language of section 9 requires the continuation of the solar promotion board


A4. SETA would be open to a referendum prior to the creation of the Board andCommittee. Furthermore, it is our understanding that the industry would have thepower to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the program, with a focus on itseconomic benefits to industry members. This is appropriate given that then solarcheck-off program is funded by a tax that is established by the industry, with theblessing of members of the industry, and for the benefit of the industry as well asthe general public.Q5. What enforcement by the Secretary of Energy do you envision that might war-


A5. In studying existing check-off programs, it appears common that enforcementpowers are granted to eliminate the problem of ‘‘free riders,’’ or nonpaying compa-nies that might otherwise benefit economically from programs that others havefunded. Without enforcement provisions, programs would be less likely to ensurethat all companies participate.Q6. What type of investigation do you believe it would be necessary for the Secretary

of Energy to conduct under Section 11 of this bill?A6. Most likely, any such investigations would be pursuant to issues of compliancewith the assessment process.Q7. How will your organization benefit from this legislation?A7. SETA is a 501(c)(6) non-profit association that works to make solar power amainstream and significant component of the U.S. energy supply. As the discussiondraft currently provides, SETA would be able to serve on the promotion board andplay a role in designing and implementing a national consumer awareness cam-paign. In doing so, SEIA would address one of its core functions: to educate con-sumers on the benefits of solar technologies.Q8. What kind of yearly revenues does the solar industry have which could be used

in a promotion program as envisioned by the legislation?A8. Globally, the solar photovoltaic industry manufactured 2.2 Gigawatts of productin 2006. The U.S., with seven percent market share, manufactured PV productsworth slightly more than $1 billion, with a net export of 10 percent of product.Q9. Where does each of you see solar power as a part of the Nation’s energy mix by

2015 by percentage if this bill is enacted?A9. As stated in SEIA’s testimony, a check-off program will only succeed if appro-priate incentives are in place, including an eight-year extension of the federal in-vestment tax credits (ITC). Over the past decade, due to a lack of progressive na-tional policy, the U.S. has lost global leadership in the race to attract solar energymanufacturing, installation, and jobs. Long-term demand-side incentive policies inJapan and Europe have spurred the formation of hundreds of new companies andtens of thousands of new solar industry jobs in those countries; Germany, with thesolar resources of Anchorage, AK, installs eight times more PV each year than theentire U.S. With appropriately designed incentive policies and increased consumerawareness, we anticipate that solar power could provide 10–15 percent of new incre-mental generating capacity annually in the U.S. by 2015.Q10. I note that, as indicated in Section 2(7), the program is generally intended to

improve the ‘‘competitive position. . .of solar energy products in the market-


82

place.’’ Because the program includes importers, apparently this means pro-moting all solar products (including German) against other technologies. Doesthis matter to American producers?

A10. We anticipate that U.S. companies would, by far and away, benefit the mostfrom a strong demand signal in the U.S. market. One of the realities of solar com-merce is that companies generally prefer to manufacture high-tech products closeto where the markets are, rather than ship them overseas and go through an exten-sive distribution system. In Germany, a national feed-in tariff incentive program forsolar PV has helped to industrialize some of that country’s most economically de-pressed regions. In the U.S., the states with the best-designed and long-term incen-tive programs have attracted the most development. Thus, in the current race forglobal solar energy leadership, increasing consumers’ awareness and demand forsolar is one of the optimal methods for growing the U.S. industry.Q11. Has the SEIA tried to do a voluntary check-off program?A11. SEIA has not tried to implement a voluntary check-off program. In formu-lating our testimony on the discussion draft, we looked at other industries that hadimplemented check-off programs. Historical examination shows that industries haveindeed organized voluntary check-offs, but they account for only a small share of allfunding for generic efforts. It seems likely that the establishment of legislative au-thority helps ensure the efficacy of check-off programs. This authority facilitates thepracticalities of dealing in interstate commerce and, as mentioned above, helps toeliminate the problem of ‘‘free riders,’’ or nonpaying companies that might otherwisebenefit economically from programs that others have funded.Q12. In your testimony, you talk mostly about distributed generation technologies of

solar energy. Do you see more of a potential for solar energy on this smallerscale or as a large solar power plant?

A12. We believe that there is a vital role both for distributed solar generation andfor concentrating solar power (CSP) in the U.S. energy portfolio. Both PV and CSPprovide high-value electricity during peak demand hours, from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M.on hot, sunny days, thus helping to conserve the use of valuable natural gas. TheWestern Governors’ Association Solar Task Force recently identified 200 GW ofprime potential sites for CSP in the Southwest, including several sites in Texas.Furthermore, a study by Navigant Consulting found that eligible rooftop space inthe U.S. could provide 700 GW of PV. We encourage the greater use of CSP andPV alike.Q13. How many members does the SEIA have? How many member organizations I

companies would benefit from additional funding for research? How manymember organizations/companies would not?

A13. SEIA represents over 550 companies involved in the U.S. solar energy indus-try. Through our weekly newsletters and alerts, we actively encourage our membersto participate in collaborative R&D efforts with the Department of Energy under thePresident’s Solar America Initiative, announced by the White House in the 2006State of the Union and first funded in FY 2007. The DOE Solar Energy Tech-nologies Program has, at the time of this writing, announced two rounds of fundingawards. The recipients are consortia of industry (usually several companies peraward), national laboratories, universities, and non-profits. While it would be impre-cise to guess how many companies would benefit from future research funding, weanticipate that such funding would continue to be directed towards collaborative re-search teams incorporating companies from throughout the solar value chain.


83


Responses by Jane M. Weissman, Executive Director, Interstate Renewable EnergyCouncil; Vice Chair, North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners


Q1a. Are you familiar with the Institute for Sustainable Power?

A1a. Yes.The Institute for Sustainable Power’s (ISP) accreditation and certification pro-

grams began 1996. International renewable energy, education, training, and accredi-tation experts worked to create ISPQ Standard #01021, which provides the guide-lines and sets the bar for the accreditation of training programs and the certificationof trainers in the renewable energy field. The objectives of the Standard are:

• to provide training programs worldwide with a harmonized training content-and delivery-guide for the knowledge and skills competencies for renewableenergy workforces;

• to increase the confidence level that industry, employers, consumers, fin-anciers, and governments can have in the participating training programsand trainers by providing a globally accepted process of evaluation and sur-veillance (audit and periodic re-evaluation) of training programs and trainers,and periodic re-evaluation of the standards; and

• to encourage safety and the training of safe practices within the industry.

In 2005, ISP decentralized operations and created licensees for operations in theUnited States, the UK and the Asia-Pacific area.

As of July 2005, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) is the NorthAmerican Licensee for the Institute for Sustainable Power’s Quality (ISPQ) Inter-national Standard #01021 for Renewable Energy Training Accreditation and In-structor Certification programs. IREC is responsible for the full accreditation andcertification cycle including processing applications, assigning registered auditors,awarding the credential, and maintaining all records of applicants, candidates andcertificants.

IREC awards formal recognition for five (5) ISPQ designations:

1. Accreditation for Training Programs2. Accreditation for Continuing Education Providers3. Certification for Independent Master Trainers4. Certification for Affiliated Master Trainers5. Certification for Instructors

Using the ISPQ International Standard #01021 as a guide, with an approved TaskAnalysis as the content standard, IREC’s ISPQ-Registered Auditors evaluate can-didates for accreditation and certification through a desk and/or on-site audit. TheAuditors prepare the results of their evaluation and report to the IREC ISPQ AwardCommittee which is responsible for the final decision on training accreditation andtrainer certification.

Two attached documents demonstrate the rigor and depth of the ISPQ process:Standard #01021 and the Candidate Handbook. For further information, please visitwww.isaausa org.

Q1b. Do you feel comfortable having them run a certification program?

A1b. Yes. The Interstate Renewable Energy Council has been working for over twodecades as a non-profit organization committed to moving renewable energy re-sources into the marketplace. IREC emphasizes education and outreach, stakeholdercoordination, technical assistance, workforce development, the adoption and imple-mentation of uniform guidelines and standards, and consumer protection. IREC isknown for its ability to identify critical issues, build networks, and develop and dis-seminate information tools that make the work of solar energy stakeholders moreeffective. The Council has a proven track record for producing material and productswith the highest professional standards, meeting deadlines and managing its oper-ations efficiently and effectively. (www.irecusa.org)

IREC’s Accreditation and Certification Programs receive counsel and oversightfrom a national, 10-person advisory board which includes trainers, industry, andcredentialing and education experts.


84

Q1c. What type of fee would you envision would be required for them to ‘‘certify’’workforce training programs?

A1c. To date, below is the current fee application and maintenance fee structure.The fees are purposely kept low. In this early stage of operation, the fee structuredoes not support the full management and administration of the ISPQ process.

Q2. How will your organization benefit from this legislation?A2. IREC’s goal is a simple one—to guarantee quality training for the solar energypractitioner. The ISPQ process is a rigorous one and there has been considerableresources spent to make this credentialing process fair, based on industry-developedstandards, and provide non bias, third-party assessment of training programs. Alldocuments and procedures have received subject-matter expert and legal review. Wewould like to see this legislation encourage the ISPQ assessment process but ourgoal is to make sure that there is assessable, quality training available for solar en-ergy installers.Q3. What is your view of cost sharing of the training programs between the states

and Federal Government?A3. When possible, IREC encourages cost sharing especially for states with SystemBenefit Funds. However, we do not think that states without these funding re-sources should be penalized. We recommend that cost sharing is encouraged but notrequired.Q4. Are the unions opposed to the training provisions in the bill?A4. We have not had any direct conversations with the unions in regard to this bill.However, the National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (NJATC) sup-ports ISPQ goals and its mission, and intends to facilitate voluntary JATC partici-pation in the ISPQ framework. NJATC is presently seeking Accredited TrainingProgram status under ISPQ for Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Systems. The scope of thisaccreditation will cover the new NJATC Solar PV System curriculum, its ITC facili-ties in Alcoa, TN, NJATC instructors, its program administrative policies andcourses offered by NJATC. We would be happy to provide contact information to theNJATC.


85


Responses by Joseph T. Sarubbi, Professor/Department Chair, Building SystemsTechnology Department, Hudson Valley Community College


Q1a. Are You familiar with the Institute for Sustainable Power?

A1a. Yes.Q1b. Do you feel comfortable having them run a certification program?

A1b. Yes. The Institute for Sustainable Power has worked hard to ensure that com-panies, installers, and training institutions meet rigorous standards that will makecertain the type of reliability needed for positive industry growth and consumer con-fidence. I have intimate knowledge of ISP’s standards and believe they do well tomanage quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC).Q1c. What type of fee would you envision would be required for them to ‘‘certify’’

workforce training programs?

A1c. An exact figure is difficult for me to ascertain. To ensure that all institutionsapplying for accreditation meet ISP standards a site visit to the institution seekingaccreditation by the ISP evaluation team is essential. In Hudson Valley CommunityCollege’s situation, the New York State Energy Research and Development Author-ity provided the resources to allow the College to position itself for Accreditation.National sponsorship of ISP could reduce the costs associated with institutional ac-creditation and help these institutions move swiftly, yet responsibly, towards accred-itation. The Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) developed a fee structurefor evaluation of solar programs and institutions seeking accreditation, and HudsonValley Community College is working within these fee guidelines. I am confidentin IREC’s ability to manage the costs associated with accreditation and certification.Q2a. Have you reviewed the legislation proposed here today?

A2a. Yes.Q2b. Do you think it makes sense to create two additional layers of bureaucracy for

the Secretary of Energy to promote solar power or do you feel it would be easierto just give DOE a grant to promote solar power? Please explain.

A2b. The Solar Energy Industries Research and Promotion Board, as well as theSolar Energy Industries Research and Promotion Operating Committee make sensein that they will be strong advocates for the advancement of the solar industry. Themembers of the Board, as well as the Committee, will be stakeholders in the solarindustry and will provide a platform for sound solar energy initiatives. While an ar-gument could certainly be made that we are creating more levels of bureaucracy,in this case, I believe the layers are valid; especially knowing that (1) no Board andCommittee members will receive compensation for their service, and (2) most, if notall, Board and/or Committee members will be utilizing the resources, staffs, and fa-cilities of existing organizations.Q3. Do you believe solar power needs to be promoted in order to be successful as an

energy resource?

A3. Yes. There is a certain level of complacency that exists in our society and I’velearned throughout the years that an effectively promoted initiative has positiveoutcomes. There are many examples to point to, some of which were identified dur-ing the hearing. I truly believe that an educated public is our strongest asset andright now I don’t believe that the Nation yet fully understands the value of invest-ing in solar power, especially the younger generation. The same could be said forother renewable energy resources.Q4. Do you support the language in the bill that requires private companies to open

their books and records to Members of the Board for inspection?A4. I don’t have the expertise to adequately answer this question.Q5. The language of this bill provides for criminal penalties for release of informa-

tion obtained under the authority of the Act to ‘‘any agency or officer of theUnited States for any purpose other than the implementation of this act.’’ Whatinformation do you believe this language is seeking to protect? Do you agreecriminal penalties are necessary?


86

A5. Again, I believe I don’t have the expertise to adequately answer this question.Q6. The language of section 9 requires the continuation of the solar promotion board


A6. Again, I believe I don’t have the expertise to adequately answer this question.Q7. What enforcement by the Secretary of Energy do you envision that might war-

rant civil penalty for noncompliance under section 10 of this bill? Is this sectionnecessary?

A7. Again, I believe I don’t have the expertise to adequately answer this question.Q8. What type of investigation do you believe it would necessary for the Secretary

of Energy to conduct under section 11 of this bill?A8. Again, I believe I don’t have the expertise to adequately answer this question.Q9. How will your organization benefit from this bill?A9. Hudson Valley Community College received a grant from the New York StateEnergy Research and Development Authority to establish our solar program. As aleader in solar training Hudson Valley Community College will be able to seek addi-tional resources to develop new solar training programs that are responsive to theindustry, as well as expand our existing program offerings. As the solar industrygrows, Hudson Valley Community College would seek additional funding for solarprogrammatic initiatives which include resources for additional faculty, curriculumdevelopment, and enhanced training facilities to react to industry trends.Q10. What kind of yearly revenues does the solar industry have which could be used

in a promotion program as envisioned by the legislation?A10. Again, I believe I don’t have the expertise to adequately answer this question.Q11. Where does each of you see solar power as a part of the Nation’s energy mix

by 2015 by percentage if this bill is enacted?A11. This bill will go a long way towards making the United States a national play-er in the solar power generation industry, and inform the world that we are seriousabout renewable energy.Q12. What is your view on cost sharing of the training programs between the states

and Federal Government?A12. Again, I believe I don’t have the expertise to adequately answer this question.Q13. Are the unions opposed to this training bill?A13. Quite the contrary. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, forexample, is very invested in training their journeyman in solar installation tech-nology. They see economic growth and job creation with this bill. One only has tolook at New York City’s ‘‘Million solar roofs’’ initiative to see the impact on job cre-ation as a valid example.Q14. Is the draft discussion draft duplicative of any current programs? If so which


A14. A handful of states, such as California, New Jersey, and New York, have solartraining initiatives that have proven track records, but the United States needs anational program to ensure the type of growth that it aspires to reach by 2015. Anational program will ensure other states will have the opportunity to enhance jobcreation in the solar industry.Q15. Mr. Sarubbi, you have demonstrated that the photovoltaic program at your

community college is in high demand and has been able to seek out severalbusiness partners. Does the Federal Government need to be involved to ‘‘spur’’further collaborations?

A15. Absolutely! Our success was driven by a collaborative effort between a Stategovernment agency, as well as national organizations such as IREC, with the re-sources and guidelines to establish an effective solar training program, and an edu-cational institution with the vision to see the value of this training. The governmentresources gave the college the confidence to move forward, which made attractingsupport from local solar companies viable. Our growth is still contingent on pro-curing resources that would allow the College to expand its offerings and further


87

develop partnerships. It’s all about confidence. Having the DOE as a sponsor ofsolar training programs will spur confidence and ensure industry growth.Q16. As your program has grown, have you had to advertise your services?A16. Interestingly, the College has gained significantly in ‘‘free’’ advertisement asnews agencies continue to report on the success of our solar training programs, fur-ther spurring interest in the community. The ‘‘press’’ has helped us ‘‘get the wordout’’ and the College has been the beneficiary of this exposure. The College alsomaintains a website link dedicated to solar training which continues to garner at-tention from those seeking information about gaining solar training.Q17. What we’ve heard today from a number of experts that explain that solar tech-

nologies are rapidly changing and evolving. Do you offer a continuing edu-cation program to meet these changing demands?

A17. Absolutely! Hudson Valley Community College has a Workforce DevelopmentInstitute that seeks to continuously provide training to meet the needs of industryand solar training is no different. For example, as state and local building and elec-trical codes change to adapt to the changing solar technology, the College providesworkshops for code inspectors to keep them abreast of these latest technological ad-vances. The College is currently developing ‘‘advanced’’ solar training courses thatwill be offered through Workforce Development to keep Certified Installers ‘‘fluid.’’Q18. Has the Department of Energy assisted you in anyway? If so, how?A18. At this stage I am not aware of any direct assistance from the Departmentof Energy.


88


Responses by Daniel E. Arvizu, Director, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,U.S. Department of Energy


Q1. Are you familiar with the Institute of Sustainable Power? Do you feel com-fortable having them run a certification program? What type of a fee would youenvision would be required for them to ‘‘certify’’ workforce training programs?

A1. I am familiar with the Institute for Sustainable Power which coordinates, devel-ops, and maintains international standards for the evaluation and qualification ofrenewable energy, energy efficiency and distributed generation training providers.ISP has a solid reputation for the quality of the work it does. I am not in a positionto comment on an appropriate fee for certifying workforce training programs.

I would suggest, however, that the Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Programbe consulted on options for improving training and certification of solar energy pro-fessionals. As part of its Solar America Initiative, the DOE has created a programto improve and expand solar installer training in cooperation with the North Amer-ican Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP). The DOE’s efforts in thisarea may be of interest to the Committee.

Q2. Have you reviewed the legislation being proposed here today? Do you think itmakes sense to create two additional layers of bureaucracy for the Secretary ofEnergy to promote solar power or do you feel it would be easier to just give DOEa grant to promote solar power? Please explain.

A2. I will defer to DOE on this question.

Q3. Do you think solar power needs to be promoted in order to be successful as anenergy resource?

A3. As Americans begin to enjoy more options as to where they get their power andfuel, I believe they need clear, credible and consistent information about all energysources to help them make informed decisions about which options to choose.

Q4. Do you support the language in the bill that requires private companies to opentheir books and records to Members of the Board for inspection?


Q5. The language of the bill provides for criminal penalties for release of informa-tion obtained under the authority of the Act to ‘‘any agency or officer of theUnited States for any purpose other than implementation of this Act.’’ What in-formation do you believe this language is seeking to protect? Do you agree crimi-nal penalties are necessary?


Q6. The language of section 9 requires the continuation of the solar promotion boardand committee should be contingent upon a vote by the manufacturers and im-porters. Would you support a referendum prior to creation of the Board andCommittee? Why or why not?

A6. I will defer to DOE on this question.Q7. What enforcement by the Secretary of Energy do you envision that might war-


A7. I will defer to DOE on this question.Q8. What type of investigation do you believe it would be necessary for the Secretary

of Energy to conduct under Section 11 of this bill?

A8. I will defer to DOE on this question.Q9. How will your organization benefit from this legislation?

A9. NREL will not directly benefit from this legislation.Q10. What kind of yearly revenues does the solar industry have which could be used

in a promotion program as envisioned by the legislation?

A10. I will defer this question to the Solar Energy Industries Association.


89

Q11. Where does each of you see solar power as a part of the Nation’s energy mixby 2015 by percentage if this bill is enacted?

A11. This bill addresses, and in some cases expands on, a number of importantareas of solar energy research, development and demonstration currently sponsoredby the DOE. It identifies critical research on thermal storage for concentrating solarpower technologies that will make those technologies significantly more valuable toutilities interested in integrating them within their system. It also calls for con-tinuing studies of that integration with a particular focus on water issues criticalitems for successful market penetration of CSP.

I would suggest that the DOE be consulted regarding the additional demonstra-tion programs the bill mandates for daylighting, solar air conditioning, andphotovoltaics. The DOE is currently expanding its efforts on demonstration and de-ployment of distributed solar and building efficiency technologies, and I believe thatcommercialization of these technologies will occur most rapidly if it is pursued with-in the context of the broader requirements and opportunities in the buildings sector.

Together, these various efforts will reinforce the DOE programs to move solar en-ergy into position to make a significant contribution to the U.S. energy picture by2015. The amount of solar power in our future energy mix will depend on a numberof factors, but supporting legislation can help accelerate the amount we have in2015.

Q12. What is your view of cost sharing of the training programs between the statesand Federal Government?

A12. I will defer to DOE on this question.Q13. Are the unions opposed to the training provisions in the bill?

A13. NREL is not qualified to answer this question.Q14. Is the Draft discussion draft duplicative of any current programs? If so which


A14. I will defer to DOE on the first part of the question dealing with duplicationof current programs. As to metrics for evaluating the success of training and othersolar programs, the major metric for the Solar Program is the levelized cost of elec-tricity. The attached slide presents the goal of the solar program to have competitiveprices of electricity in the three market sectors (residential, commercial, and utility)by 2015. A secondary goal is to have about 4 gigawatts of installed solar power by2015.Q15. In your testimony you state that the ‘‘Solar Energy Program goal is to reduce

the cost of solar photovoltaic technologies so that they become cost competitivewith other sources of electricity in all major U.S. markets by 2015.’’ Are youon track to reach this goal? What major hurdles would prevent you from doingso?

A15. The current DOE Solar Program in photovoltaics is designed to make solarelectricity cost competitive in the three major markets—residential, commercial, andutility—by 2015 through the President’s Solar American Initiative. This initiativebuilds on the experience with bringing down the costs of solar electricity from suc-cessful programs in Japan and Europe. The program is currently on track to meetthese 2015 targets for the U.S. consumer. Technology investments and consistentpolicies are both important, but to ensure success, to increase the technical leader-ship of the U.S. in this expanding high-technology business, and to build a solidtechnical workforce in the U.S. economy, the investment in R&D both in the short-and long-term, must be strong, consistent and sustainable.Q16. You mention that CSP power plants can be quickly constructed. How quickly

and how much do they cost to build? Are there any NIMBY issues involvedwith their siting and construction?

A16. SolarGenix recently completed construction of a 64 MW plant near Las Vegas,Nevada. Construction of the 64 MW plant took approximately one year to complete.This matches previous experience in the late 80’slearly 90’s where nine CSP plantswere built in the Mojave Desert over a period of six years.

It is hard to predict NIMBY issues. CSP plants tend to be located in desert re-gions not ideal for residential development. However, as is the case in California,concerns have risen over the development of CSP on sensitive habitats (e.g., DesertTortoise). As with other forms of conventional or renewable generation, construction


90

of new transmission or upgrades of existing transmission can raise regional con-cerns.Q17. Are there any CSP plants with thermal storage in operation today? Are any hy-

brid CSP/natural gas plants in operation? If not, when can we expect to seethem running?

A17. All of the existing nine parabolic trough plants operating in the Mojave Desertare hybridized with natural gas, therefore supplying 100 percent of their rated ca-pacity during peak utility periods. Two plants under construction in Spain (antici-pated to be operational in 2008 and 2009) will use 6–7 hours of two-tank indirectmolten salt storage. However storage costs need to be reduced before such plantswould be considered economically competitive.Q18. How does this legislation fit within the Administration’s energy initiatives? I

know that the Administration announced $168 million to help reduce the costof solar energy.

A18. I will defer to DOE on this question.Q19. Has the Administration done a cost estimate of the bill? Page 20 calls for an

unlimited authorization. What is your estimate?A19. I will defer to DOE on this question.Q20. Solar power has had problems with environmental concerns with toxic like cad-

mium used in some photovoltaic cells. Does CSP use cells that contain thesekinds of materials that might cause environmental concerns? Are there any en-vironmental concerns as to land use, etc.?

A20. Concentrating Solar Power systems use thermal energy to drive an energyconversion device (steam/gas turbine or Stirling engine) rather than solar cells. Heattransfer fluids used by some systems can consist of synthetic oils or molten saltscan both be considered hazardous but have been widely used and permitted in com-mercial or demonstration plants in California. Land use can be a concern whereplants are being considered near sensitive habitat areas (e.g., the Desert Tortoisein California’s Mojave Desert). Parabolic trough and power tower plants requirewater for cooling (as with conventional generation) although dry cooling designshave been studied and are being considered for future plants.


(91)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD


92


93


94


95


96


97


98


99


100


101


102


103


104


105


106


107


108


109


110


111
